Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For the Borough of Bradford (South Division), in the room of Meredith Farrer Titterington, Esquire (deceased).—[Mr. Whiteley.]

Orders of the Day — CHARITY OF WALTER STANLEY IN WEST BROMWICH BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.6 a.m.

Mr. M. Philips Price (Charity Commissioner): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a small Measure which deals with the variation of a trust for the purpose of endowing incumbents in certain Anglican parishes in West Bromwich. This charity was founded in the year 1613 by Mr. Walter Stanley to endow the incumbent of the one parish of West Bromwich. The trust was altered in 1819—over a century ago—because the population had increased to 9,000 and the income had also increased so that it was found necessary to have a second parish and to divide the income between the two incumbents. This was done by Act of Parliament.
Generally it is possible for the Charity Commission to vary trusts without having to come to this House under the terms of the original powers given to it by this House. However, where a trust has been varied by this House, only this House can alter it again. That is why I have to ask for permission for an alteration to be made in this trust. Normally the Commission could deal with the matter, but in this case it cannot.
The reason for alteration is the same as that given in 1819. There has been a very large growth in the population of West Bromwich, and instead of two parishes there are now eleven. Moreover, there has been a great increase in the income for the incumbents. The

money has been invested in house property which, of course, has gone up considerably in value in the last 130 years. Also, certain leases have fallen in fairly recently and this has raised the income to the sum of £6,595. As the matter now stands, the whole of this sum goes to the two original parishes, and the other nine have to go without any of this increased income. This Bill proposes to share the income equitably.
Clause 1 merely confirms the proposals laid down in the Schedule to the Bill. In the Schedule there is prescribed the mode of election of the trustees, and there is also a provision dealing with the meetings and the procedure to be followed by the trustees. Then, most important of all, there is the application of the increased income. The proposal is that an annual sum of £600 should be laid by for the purpose of a repair fund for the properties until the figure of £20,000 is reached. That will take some years. The second provision is that the sum of £1,000 shall go to the two original parishes, increasing their present income. Finally, the sum of £1,870 shall go to the remaining nine parishes. There will be a substantial balance left, and it is proposed that it should be left to the trustees to decide in their discretion any additional sums which they might give to any of the 11 parishes which may stand in need.
Those are the simple provisions of the Bill, but, of course, much larger issues are raised which are not covered by its provisions. One continually finds that there are trusts which can no longer be carried out according to the terms laid down by the original founder, because conditions are constantly changing. This particular Measure is a relatively simple one, because it is possible to continue the objects for which the Trust was originally founded, but there are others concerning which I continually receive letters from hon. Members asking me whether they cannot have the terms of the trust altered in some way or other, because it cannot any longer be carried on as originally intended. In fact, there are considerable sums of money accumulating in such cases, and they cannot be dealt with. Therefore, I take this opportunity of indicating that there is another issue on this matter which at some time in the future ought to be investigated. With that simple explanation, I hope the House will agree to the Second Reading of this Bill.

11.13 a.m.

Sir John Mellor: May I ask the hon. Gentleman two questions? I notice that a substantial part of the assets consists of house property in the town of Sutton Coldfield, and I would like to know if the hon. Gentleman can give an assurance that the changes proposed by this Bill will have no adverse effect whatever on the residents in that house property. The second question concerns a small point. I notice that the first-named trustee is appointed for life. That may be an entirely reasonable and justifiable course, but, in view of the recent policy shown in the Companies Act in regard to the tenure of office by directors, I think perhaps the hon. Gentleman might be prepared to explain why this gentleman is appointed for life.

Mr. Philips Price: As regards the second point, I can assure the hon. Baronet that all local interests have been consulted in this matter, and the life member has something to do with the original founder, though exactly in what way I cannot say at the moment. I will inform the hon. Baronet on the point later. The local parish councils appoint trustees to act for a certain time, so that there is no possibility of a lot of old people running the show permanently.
As regards the other point concerning the interests of the tenants, I think the mere fact that a fund is being raised to increase to £20,000 for repairs and for looking after the house property will be an advantage to them.

Sir J. Mellor: Then the hon. Gentleman can give the assurance that there will be no disadvantage to the present occupiers of the property, but that, on the contrary, it should be beneficial to them?

Mr. Philips Price: I certainly can give that assurance. They will be very much better off.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.

Orders of the Day — WAR DAMAGED SITES [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable local authorities to take possession of or do work on certain war damaged land and to authorise the conversion of cost of works payments in certain cases, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of such moneys under Part I or Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948;
(b) any increase in the compensation payable by the Crown under any Act which is attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session regulating the compensation payable in respect of a compulsory acquisition of land, including any increase which is attributable as aforesaid in the sums payable into the Road Fund out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of expenses of the Minister of Transport;

and the charging on and issuing out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase in the sums required for payments under the War Damage Act, 1943, attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session enabling the War Damage Commission to make such payments as are authorised by section thirteen of the said Act of 1943.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WAR DAMAGED SITES BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO TAKE POSSESSION TEMPORARILY OF CERTAIN WAR DAMAGED LAND.)

11.16 a.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, after "may," to insert:
where they are unable to take such a lease by agreement.
This is a simple Amendment, but an important one. Clause 1 is drafted so as to give two alternative powers to a local authority if and when they are satisfied on each of the three conditions specified in subsection (1). These two alternative powers are put simply and without qualification as alternative. The local authority may take a lease of the land by agreement, or may be authorised by the Minister to take possession of the land compulsorily.
In our view, that provision is not satisfactory put in those terms. We believe that what the Bill should provide is that


the local authority has power to take a lease by agreement, and, failing that, to requisition the land under compulsory powers. It is indeed, or it certainly was, inherent in our system that voluntary powers are not and should not be enforced until voluntary persuasion has failed and can be shown to have failed, and that is the system which we suggest should come within the provision of this subsection. If the words which are proposed to be inserted are incorporated in the Bill it then becomes clear that the local authority cannot proceed to the use of compulsory powers until the powers of voluntary persuasion and negotiation have failed.
Now it may very well be that the right hon. Gentleman will say that local authorities, being reasonable bodies, will not, in fact, proceed to the use of compulsory powers until the use of voluntary powers—that is to say, the taking of a lease by voluntary negotiation—has failed and it may well be, as, I am sure, it will be, in the great majority of cases, at any rate, that that will be so. However, there is no reason why there should not be a statutory provision to that effect. Indeed, there is every reason why there should be a statutory provision to ensure that, in the minority of cases where it may otherwise not be so, it will be so under the terms of this Bill.
I did cite on Second Reading one comparison which I felt was relevant, and that was the recent comparison from Section 43 of the Town and Country Planing Act, 1947. As the Committee knows, Section 43 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, is the Section whereby the Central Land Board has power to acquire compulsorily in certain cases: and subsection (2) of that Section reads:
If the Minister is satisfied that it is expedient in the public interest that the Board should acquire any land for any such purpose as aforesaid, and that the Board are unable to acquire the land by agreement on reasonable terms, he may authorise the Board the acquire the land compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of this section.
From the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman and Members opposite, I am citing, I hope, a very respectable precedent when I cite Section 43 of the Town and Country Planning Act. I have never hidden my own view that it is an

extremely controversial Section indeed, but the subsection I have just read out seems to me to be probably the most reasonable feature of that highly controversial Section. Therefore, it seems to us that it would be a good thing to borrow the words of that Section and reproduce them in this Clause of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman would hardly like, I imagine, to lag behind the Minister of Town and Country Planning in reasonableness, or in regard for the liberties of the subject. Therefore, with that example, and, it may be, that challenge before him, I confidently hope that he will see the reasonableness of the Amendment. It is, as I say, in terms a simple Amendment. It in no way complicates the Bill, and it gives statutory force to a principle which, I am sure, hon. Members on both sides of the Committee value. For those reasons I move the Amendment.

Colonel Dower: I rise only to say that I hope that at the beginning of these proceedings the right hon. Gentleman will show the same co-operation now that we showed on Second Reading. This Amendment in no way conflicts with what the right hon. Gentleman said when he spoke on Second Reading. I have the report of his speech before me, but as, I am sure, his words are still fresh in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman I do not intend to read out even the parts of it relevant to this matter. I would only say that all the way through his speech he showed his determination to try to bring about what he wanted, first, by full and free voluntary agreement between any of the parties, before resorting to any of the strong compulsory powers that are contained in this Bill.
We are not in any way against the putting into operation of compulsory powers. I can assure hon. Members opposite that that is perfectly true. What we do feel, though, is that they should be the last resort, and that before they are put into operation, the right hon. Gentleman should try to see that friendly negotiation takes place so that all the parties will feel, not only that they are not in any way being overridden, but that they are being given a fair and free chance to take part in what we all desire, which is the clearing of those bombed sites.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): As I have ventured to remark


before—I think probably privately; my mind cannot recall the exact circumstances—I cannot make up my mind whether I prefer to have a Bill opposed on Second Reading or unopposed on Second Reading. My experience has taught me that it is very much more difficult in Committee if the Bill has not been opposed on Second Reading, because then at the Committee stage we have a number of Second Reading points which, were they carried, would have the effect of wrecking the Bill entirely.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman now says we have a number of Second Reading points in Committee. How does he square that with his observation on second Reading that we were bringing up a number of Committee points on Second Reading?

Mr. Bevan: There is nothing at all to prevent the hon. Member from doing both—from putting Committee points on Second Reading and Second Reading points in Committee—which is precisely what the hon. Gentleman has succeeded in doing.

Mr. Walker-Smith: They are the same points.

Mr. Bevan: If one wills the end one really must will the means. If it be the fact that the House of Commons has generally ageed that these bombed sites should be cleared up and should be put into proper order, then hon. Members ought not to insist on Amendments which make that practically impossible. This is precisely one of those Amendments, and the hon. Member has pleaded a very heavy argument indeed. First of all, he quotes from another Act the machinery for compulsory acquisition when, as a matter of fact, we are not discussing compulsory acquisition at all. We are discussing temporary possession, and surely it is not appropriate to apply to temporary possession machinery which has been laid down for compulsory acquisition. Therefore, his comparison is, I think, entirely beside the point.
Moreover, there are a number of Amendments on the Paper of much the same altitude, to import into this slender and, I thought, generally agreed Measure machinery which is used in connection with major legislation, and which, if it were put into the Bill, would have

the effect of frightening all the local authorities away, so that the Bill would become abortive from the very beginning.
Let us see what we are asked to do by this Amendment. The hon. Gentleman says it is simple. It is simple, yes; but as simple as a bullet; it just kills the Bill from the very start. I will try to show how. In the first place, how is a local authority to obtain the permission of an owner who cannot be found? There is nothing in the Amendment about that at all. We do not know where are the owners of very many of these blitzed sites. They have no interest in them at the moment. That is part of the difficulty. They are entirely neglecting them because until they are developed or redeveloped, either the authority which is going to redevelop them, or the owner who is ultimately to be able to build upon them, has no interest in the matter at all. The owner does not bother about it, and the local authority has to search around for a very long time trying to find out who was, in fact, the owner of the property, or who had a right in it.
In many cases there is not only one person, remember, but a very large number who would have an interest or a share in only one of these blitzed sites. The local authority would have to search around trying to find each one of them, because if each one had not been asked for his consent the local authority could not take possession of the site.

Colonel Dower: Does that mean that the Minister does not intend to try to obtain consent by agreement?

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Bevan: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will wait, I shall come to that later on. I am only pointing out that in a great city like London, where there are a number of participants in the ownership of a bombed site, to insist that the local authority should search out and obtain the consent of each one before proceeding to take possession of the site would frustrate the local authority at the very start. That is why we have put into the Bill the provision that the local authority can for clearing purposes enter into possession of the site in 24 hours. I notice that there is an Amendment down to that provision also.
We also provide that the local authority can put up a notice, such as is


done in the short method of acquiring possession of land under the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946. In 1946 the House found it necessary to agree to that, because it was not always possible to find the owners, and at that time the House passed a Measure which I proposed to it which, in the case of house building, enabled a local authority which could not find the owner to put up a notice on the site. If that be the case where the possession of land is urgently required for housing purposes, and where complete possession is being taken for all time, it is surely reasonable to have such a provision in a Bill under which temporary possession is to be taken.
Secondly, the Amendment does not say how long the owner can spend parleying, even if he is discovered. He can simply delay, and if he does not consent action cannot be taken. How long must the local authority wait? The Amendment says nothing about that. It gives no definition of "reasonable time," so that all the owner need do is to refrain from giving consent, and the local authority will be delayed for very many months. I should have thought the hon. Member would be with me in wanting to get these blitzed sites cleared up. He ought not, therefore, in his passion for the defence of every piece of private property, to deny the means by which this can be carried out.
We shall, of course, by administrative action seek to obtain the consent of the owner where the owner can be readily found. That is the whole point. The Minister's authority has to be obtained if compulsory possession of the site is sought. If the local authority knows it can proceed by agreement it does so, and in such cases my consent would not be sought. But where the local authority intends to proceed to compulsory possession the consent of the Minister would be asked, and I should imagine that in such circumstances he would ask the local authority whether they had taken reasonable steps to obtain the consent of the owner of the property. I should have thought that in that way all requirements of reasonable conduct would be met, and I must therefore resist the Amendment.

Sir John Mellor: I am really astonished at the right hon. Gentleman talking like that about this Amendment and saying that it would kill the Bill. Surely the Bill is not such a rotten Bill that it will be killed by an Amendment of this kind? We ought to give a little more thought to this, and not permit it to be dismissed by the Minister in that way. He says that a local authority often cannot find the owner. Surely that difficulty could be overcome, and instead of saying that this Amendment would wreck the Bill the Minister ought to try to see how this Amendment can be improved so as to satisfy his criticisms.

Mr. Bevan: How would the hon. Gentleman suggest?

Sir J. Mellor: I will proceed to tell the right hon. Gentleman. The Minister himself is now trying to wreck the Amendment. Instead of doing that, let him consider how the Amendment might be improved. As the local authority has to advertise and give notice of their intention it would be perfectly easy to provide that, if no reply to such notice is received from any interested person within a very short period the local authority is entitled to assume that no proprietor can be found, and in the absence of any claimant to a proprietory interest it would be reasonable that the local authority should apply for authorisation for compulsory acquisition. I am sure my hon. Friend would be prepared to accept some such Amendment to his Amendment.
The Minister then asked how long the local authority would have to wait. Again, it would be the simplest thing to put a definite time limit in the Bill. He also said that this could be dealt with by administrative action, and that everybody is most anxious to be reasonable. As a result of our experience during this Parliament we have found that people prefer to have things in the Bill; they prefer to know how they stand and what their rights are, so that if they are dealt with in a high-handed way they have some redress.

Mr. J. H. Hare: I do think the Minister is exaggerating the point that one of the inconveniences of accepting this Amendment would be to frustrate local authorities because they would be unable to find the owners of sites. He is surely using the exception


in order to prove a line of thought. He wishes, for administrative convenience, to streamline this Bill, as it were, and to give nobody the right of appeal; but in order to justify that, he says that local authorities will be impeded in their job of clearing these sites because they will not be able to find the owners. Admittedly, there may be cases in which the local authority does not know the owner of a site, but the Minister must admit that such cases are the exception and not the rule.

Mr. Bevan: Oh, no.

Mr. Hare: To base his whole argument on that is surely specious. I therefore certainly support this Amendment.

Commander Galbraith: I am sorry that the Minister has taken up this attitude, because I can assure him at once that we on this side of the Committee have no intention of wrecking this Bill. Indeed, we desire to see it go forward, and in putting down this Amendment we thought we were helping the right hon. Gentleman. During his Second Reading speech the Minister said most clearly that before granting compulsory acquisition he would make certain that everything had been done to secure agreement, and we are only seeking to put that into the Bill. We are doing that, and nothing more.
The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that our Amendment falls far short of what is necessary to secure what we desire, without providing a delay which would frighten the local authorities out of taking any action at all. If he would only think a little more deeply about some of our subsequent Amendments, to which he referred, he would find that fear unjustified. In a later Amendment, in Clause 3, page 2, line 31, in which we refer to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, we seek to make provision for missing owners, and also to ensure that there shall not be any undue delay. But that can be argued when we reach that Amendment.
This Amendment is in no way a wrecking Amendment. We merely put down what we thought the Minister desired. It is making absolutely certain that the local authorities exhaust the possibilities of agreement before they apply to the

Minister. It is really saving the Minister a considerable amount of trouble. It is a beneficial Amendment, and for those reasons I am afraid I shall have to ask those who sit behind me to insist on dividing the Committee.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Before we take a decision on this matter, I should like to answer one or two of the points raised by the Minister in reply to the speech in which I commended this Amendment to the Committee. His first point was that the comparison of this procedure with the well known procedure regulating the compulsory acquisition of land is a comparison which should not be pressed. He says that, because he distinguishes between the case of taking permanent possession of land and taking temporary possession of land by requisitioning. There is a distinction between taking land for five or 10 years and taking land permanently, but it is a distinction of degree. I venture to suggest that a good deal of the land which is taken under compulsory requisitioning under this Bill will never find its way back to its original owners; it will be the first step, which will be followed in due course by compulsory acquisitioning. I think that the good sense of the Committee will suggest that the procedure should be followed except in such cases where it is inapplicable.
His second point was in regard to not being able to find the owners, and my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) and Woodbridge (Mr. Hare) have already referred to that point. The Minister exaggerates the difficulties of finding the owners of sites. The sites that are to be dealt with under this Bill are mainly in big cities, and the Minister has an inaccurate impression of the values of the sites in these cities if he really thinks that the owners are not aware of their ownership. If, in spite of every reasonable effort, the local authority cannot find the owner, then, quite clearly, they are unable to take the land by agreement within the terms of the Amendment. In other words, the Amendment acts as no bar at all, which was the principal reason put up by the Minister.
As the Committee are aware, local authorities are under a duty to try to identify the owner if they are to carry out the procedure of the Schedule for


compulsory requisitioning. The, Minister must be very barren of argument if he has to attach such weight to such a fine point as that. He went on to say that in the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, it had been necessary to incorporate a special Section to give powers for speedy compulsory acquisition, but he did not say that in every Act since incorporating that provision the Section giving power for speedy acquisition has been excluded. That, again, seems to be a very poor point on which to found his argument.
He made the point, which I anticipated he would make, that this is unnecessary because the local authorities would tend to do this administratively in any event. That point has also been fully and lucidly answered by my hon. Friend for Sutton Coldfield. People like to see, and are entitled to see, their rights on the Statute Book, so that if a local authority tends to be arbitrary or overriding in its demeanour, a person is able to point to the Statute Book and say, "These are the rights Parliament gave me. This is what Parliament said they would do."

Finally, the Minister referred to what he was pleased to call my passion for protecting private property. I have no such passion, but what I do have, and what every Member should have, is a passion for the protection of liberty. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman laughs at that, but his laughter is extraordinarily out of place. I challenge him to cite the case of any country in which liberty has survived the suppression of private property. We know it is a fact that the normal method of totalitarianism is the extinction of the rights of private property, just as of the political rights of the individual. When the right hon. Gentleman laughs he reveals one of two things, or both—either his gross ignorance of contemporary history, or his inattention to the rights of the subject in a free community. In these circumstances, I can only express my disappointment at the action of the Minister, and the hope that the Committee will support this Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 35; Noes, 80.

Division NO. 285.]
AYES
[11.48 a.m.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hollis, M. C.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Channon, H.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Davidson, Viscountess
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Smithers, Sir W.


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Studholme, H. G.


Fox, Sir G.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Medlicott, Brigadier F
Walker-Smith, D.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Mellor, Sir J.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.



Gridley, Sir A.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Price-White, D.
Major Conant and Colonel Wheatley.




NOES


Albu, A. H.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Dumpleton, C. W.
Moyle, A.


Attewell, H. C.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Nally, W.


Austin, H. Lewis
Field, Capt. W. J.
Naylor T. E.


Ayles, W. H.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Pargiter, G. A.


Battley, J. R.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Parker, J.


Berry, H.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Parkin, B. T.


Beswick, F.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Piratin, P


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Popplewell, E.


Binns, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Price, M. Philips


Blenkinsop, A.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Bowden, H. W.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bramall, E. A.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Royle, C.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Kenyon, C.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Lipton, Lt.-Col M.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Burden, T. W.
Longden, F.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Coldrick, W.
McAdam, W.
Skinnard, F. W.


Daines, P.
McEntee, V. La. T.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Swingler, S.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mellish, R. J.
Symonds, A. L.


Delargy, H. J.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dodds, N. N.
Morley, R.
Tiffany, S.




Turner-Samuels, M.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Yates, V. F.


Viant, S. P.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)



Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Warbey, W. N.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wilkins.


Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(COMPULSORY TAKING OF POSSESSION.)

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, to leave out from "writing," to the end of line 33, and to insert:
Before such authorisation is given the local authority shall make an application therefor to the Minister and the provisions of paragraph 3 (excepting the proviso to sub-paragraph (1) thereof and paragraphs (2) and (3) thereof) and paragraph 4 of the First Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, shall apply to the publication of a notice of the submission of such application and to the making and hearing of objections to the giving of an authorisation as if the making of such application were the submission of a compulsory purchase order under that Act and the giving of an authorisation were the confirming of such an order and save as aforesaid the provisions of the Schedule to this Act shall have effect in relation to the giving of such an authorisation.
I want to assure the Minister of Health that the Amendment is not intended to be a wrecking one but is intended to help him to carry out the functions of the Bill. There is already laid down a code of procedure to be followed in the case of the compulsory acquisition of land. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that there is a difference between compulsory acquisition of land for all time and compulsory acquisition for a period. In the Bill the period is five years, which may be extended to ten years. We do not know whether, at the end of ten years the period may not be extended for a further period. At any rate, there is no doubt that this is compulsory taking possession of land.
The submission I make is that we should follow the procedure, the code and the principles laid down in the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946. A different procedure is proposed in the Bill. It consists, in the first place, of advertisements inserted in certain local newspapers and in requiring a notice to be served on the person who is entitled to possession of the land. When that is done, the person

entitled to possession can make representations in writing to the Minister. So far, the procedure does not differ from what is laid down in the Act of 1946, which also provides for publication in the Press and for a notice being served. Up to that point there is no difference whatsoever. Then, the person who is entitled to the land, the owner or lessee, can submit his objections against the land being compulsorily acquired. On these objections being submitted and not being withdrawn, the Minister has to set in motion certain procedure. He can call for a public inquiry to be made or he can arrange for the objector to be given a hearing.
I want to stress the difference between making objections in writing and having a hearing. There are many people who are not competent to put into writing their objections but can very well state them verbally. In any case—and this is something which the right hon. Gentleman knows and will agree to—it is not just enough that justice should be done. Justice should also appear to be done. If the right hon. Gentleman is merely to consider some objections made in writing is will not appear to all concerned that justice is in fact being done.
It may be objected that the procedure of the Act is much too complicated. I think that the right hon. Gentleman said the same thing in the remarks he made upon the Amendment upon which the Committee has just divided. I suggest that the procedure is no more complicated than that which is proposed in the Bill. The Minister has then to consider if any person who has an interest is willing to put the land into a condition which is not detrimental to the amenities. When the right hon. Gentleman has considered that point he has to consider whether an objection has been made and whether the person interested is able to carry out the work that is required.
I submit that what the Minister ought to do is to conduct an inquiry. Therefore he might just as well do it under the procedure laid down in the 1946 Act as under the procedure proposed in the Bill. The procedure in the Act is preferable


to that in the Bill. We think that from the point of view of the Minister and of the public it is far better to adhere to the procedure in the Act, which we believe to be more just, more expeditious and more satisfactory. We do not insist entirely upon the wording of the Amendment. I think we have made plain what purpose we have in mind, and if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the wording can be improved upon, we shall be willing to follow that course.

12 noon.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): As I said in replying to the Debate on Second Reading, I feel that hon. Members opposite are making very heavy weather of the rather modest proposal in the Bill. I insisted then, as my right hon. Friend did, and we have insisted here again this morning, that this is purely a temporary measure of possession, and hon. Members opposite will insist upon suggesting that we should have the whole panoply of provisions which are proper no doubt, to questions of acquisition. I noted with some interest that one local government journal a little while ago, writing of this Bill before Second Reading, suggested that these compulsory powers might cause a little disturbance among old-fashioned real estate lawyers. I hope hon. Members opposite will not insist upon that qualification.
What we are trying to establish is a reasonably speedy procedure for the very limited and very laudable object of trying to get rid of some of our war damaged sites, which, as everybody agrees, are a nuisance and, indeed, a danger to the public. The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) suggests that owners would have difficulty in putting their objections in writing. That is an extraordinary suggestion. Is it really impossible for an owner to find someone to write for him if he cannot do so himself or to help him in drafting his objections? It was a very weak and very limited argument. My right hon. Friend can always hold an inquiry or have a hearing of the parties, and he would do so where circumstances really warranted it, but to require it in all cases is quite absurd in a Bill which is of very limited purpose. For

that reason the Committee should not agree to the Amendment.

Dr. Haden Guest: I did not come to the House this morning to make a speech on this Bill because it never entered my mind, as a commonsense individual, that anybody would oppose what is so obviously a necessary precaution in view of existing circumstances. In my constituency of North Islington the matter is an extraordinarily difficult one. I have had a lot of correspondence recently about one bombed site. There are a number of owners of the site, and there are all kinds of difficulties. Amenities? There are just no amenities left round about that place. Horrible conditions have been brought about.
The procedure proposed here is very simple and straightforward, and it is a temporary provision. It does not inflict hardships, certainly none which are unnecessary, but at the present time the condition of bombed sites is inflicting gross hardships on people round about. We ought to have consideration for such people, and because owners have not taken steps which they might have taken and which they ought to have taken to remove nuisances, it is desirable to have this procedure. The long-winded alternative methods suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) seem quite off the mark.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: No one who has travelled, as I frequently have, through the constituency of the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) would quarrel for a moment with his views. We all know the urgency of the problem. There is no opposition to the main suggestion put forward in the Clause. We all feel that to get the owner to provide the necessary finance to secure proper amenity is much better than using public money for the purpose, and the Bill makes provision for him to do so.

Dr. Guest: But the owner does not do it.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Na doubt in many cases he does not, but in many cases he does, and one cannot generalise. However, when the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary rest themselves with such comfort on the temporary nature of this provision.


I must point this out. So often, with the best will in the world, Governments of all complexions—it is not a party point—produce Measures which they describe as temporary and which even contain a time limit. The Minister is entitled to point to the fact that a time limit is provided but our experience shows—I am sure I shall have the assent of the hon. Member for North Islington who has been here a great many years—that upon the expiry of the period the Government of the day of whatever colour it may be finds good and sufficient reasons for prolongation or re-enactment. Does the hon. Member for North Islington wish to speak?

Dr. Guest: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to my having been here a large number of years. That is true. I only wanted to say that the longer I am here, the less I am inclined to agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman hoping that he had a more helpful intervention to make than that. I do not think he would disagree with what I am saying now, however much he may disagree with other things I say. He must have in mind similar cases where the time limit in an Act is expiring and the Government of the day for some reason good to themselves, and very often good to all of us, decide upon prolongation. We frequently find all such Measures shovelled into the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill at the beginning of the Session and disposed of in an afternoon without a real opportunity for detailed consideration being given to them.
We shall be very lucky indeed if the necessity for this Measure is non-existent five or 10 years from now. A general curtailment of building is taking place. Anybody who knows anything about the educational position knows that on sites of one kind or another temporary prefabricated halls for the provision of school meals and so on are being put up, and everybody knows that they will be there for a minimum of 10 years. The Parliamentary Secretary is correct within the letter but I believe he will find he is wrong if he examines the spirit of the matter and the likely course of events.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith)

moved the Amendment for that reason. We feel this Bill is likely to be prolonged or re-enacted in the future, and if that is so, all we are asking is that there shall be a simple piece of machinery for inquiry. I do not believe that it means a great deal of delay. As the hon. Gentleman said, if owners are incapable of stating their case in writing they can find someone else to do it for them. There is not very much in that. It is a sort of suggestion for the relief and sustenance of lawyers, of whom I am not one. The same argument applies to inquiries. An owner would naturally instruct some legal gentleman to appear at the inquiry and put his case for him. This is a simple, important improvement of the Bill. As my hon. and gallant Friend said, in no sense is it a wrecking Amendment. It is a safeguard that where the machinery is set in operation there shall be every possible opportunity for owners to be heard and considered.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Before I come to the main point of the Amendment, I should like to make brief reference to the speech of the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) who made what I believe he will on reflection see was a somewhat ungracious interruption of the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite).
The hon. Member for North Islington did not speak on the Second Reading of this Bill. I am not sure whether he was here on that occasion, but I infer that he was not because he seemed to be making on this Amendment a speech which he would have made on Second Reading had he 'then been present. Had he been present on that occasion he would realise that it was agreed on all sides of the House that the fact that war damaged sites were in a dilapidated condition was not necessarily the fault of the owners of the sites, and many reasons were given in many speeches why that was so. If the hon. Member had taken the trouble, before intervening, to look at the report of the Second Reading Debate, he would not have made that point either. I will leave the speech of the hon. Member for North Islington at that.
The Amendment is couched in somewhat cumbrous phraseology, but it would have been open to the Parliamentary Secretary to say that it constituted legisla-


tion by reference and for that reason was not a happy thing. The hon. Gentleman did not make that point but, in any event, though the language of the Amendment is perhaps complicated, its substance is simple and valid. All it does is to substitute a known and standardised code of procedure for the makeshift code specified in the Schedule to this Bill.
There are three main differences between the Schedule to this Bill and the recognised code under the 1946 Act. Two of them are comparatively unimportant. There is only one publication instead of two under this Schedule, and the time for making representations is 14 days instead of 21. On those points we on this side would not insist on the exact words of the 1946 code if it is thought that these lesser periods serve better the purpose of the Bill. So far as the third and important difference is concerned, the right of the owner to some sort of inquiry or, if not a public local inquiry, at any rate some hearing at which he can put his own case, that is obviously a point of considerable substance. After all, the concept, "I will hear the other side," is as old as British justice and it should never lightly be jettisoned by this House of Commons.
I hope I am not doing the Minister an injustice here, and I should be the first gladly to recognise it if I am, but it does not appear that the Minister attaches the same weight to these concepts of natural justice that some of us do. I was somewhat shocked and surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman describe the procedure in his Second Reading speech as
the cumbrous and tedious machinery of compulsory purchase."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 1066.]
Those seem most inapposite and regrettable words to pour from the lips of the Minister responsible for the 1946 Act and also for much of the procedure of compulsory purchase. After all, the machinery he now condemns is his own. The First Schedule to the 1946 Act is his own creation. The Minister commended the 1946 Act to this House and piloted it through this House. It is therefore remarkable that he should now refer to it in those slighting terms.
What the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary say is that this procedure involves delay. How much delay? It need involve very little delay.
The time for the making of representations by objectors is short, so there is no delay there. Every other steps in the procedure is a step in the time-table fixed by the Minister. The Minister appoints the date for the inquiry or hearing, the Minister selects and appoints the inspector. It is up to the Minister whether a long or short time is taken on the consideration of that report and the publication of his decision. Every step involved in the machinery of compulsory purchase is administrative and the timetable is dealt with exclusively in Whitehall.
12.15 p.m.
Therefore it is not becoming for the Minister to complain of the delay in the procedure. If there is delay it is his own delay. I do not think there is so much delay. It is at any rate a good deal quicker than the normal procedure of the courts. If there is delay, it is not for the Minister to come here and complain, and to use it as a reason for not adopting the procedure. It is a reason for him to go back and look into his own administration and see where the delay occurs and how he can best get rid of it.
The point has been made by my hon. Friends that the taking of land for this length of time may be a permanency and, at any rate, is sufficiently serious to warrant that the citizen gets from this House his normal and natural rights. Even if it involves a little delay it is always true that the processes of justice do so. A ruthless procedure without regard to the rights of the citizen is always more rapid, and it may be more satisfactory from the administrative point of view, than a procedure rooted in the tradition of justice, but it is not more satisfactory from the point of view of the citizen and of those traditional rights which it is the privilege and duty of hon. Members of this House to defend.
We regard the machinery introduced into this Bill as a retrograde step in the direction of administrative law, and it is not a step that should be passed without challenge and opposition from this Committee. All that an objector has the right to receive under the Schedule is a bare notification of the decision of the Minister. He is not even entitled to know the reasons whereby the Minister has put aside his objections and has reached that decision. That, in my submission, is a


most arbitrary procedure, and the Schedule is cast in terms which are by no means ones which should be incorporated in an Act of Parliament. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment will be supported, as it deserves to be.

Mr. Bevan: I hope the Opposition will not press this Amendment and I suggest in all seriousness to the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) that he ought not to invoke such majestic conceptions for such trivialities, otherwise he will lose all capacity for emphasis. If what he suggested is true, I find it difficult to understand why only 35 Members of his party have rallied to the defence of those principles of eternal justice which apparently are being violated by us at the present time. It shows an absence of a sense of proportion in the matter, and we ought not to use this occasion for the purpose of such wide-ranging discussions as the hon. Member has indulged in on two occasions this morning.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the principles of justice. Those were defined by myself as being the ancient principle of, "I will hear the other side." Will the right hon. Gentleman answer these two questions: first, does he or does he not agree with that? Secondly, is there any provision for the implementation of that in the Schedule?

Mr. Bevan: As these people are the possessors of these bombed sites they could, as the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) has pointed out, be accused already of not doing part of their duty in not keeping the bombed sites in order. It is quite remarkable how the hon. Member for Hertford can be indignant for the owners of these neglected sites and have no indignation whatever for those who suffer from their condition at the present time. He really has a most extraordinary source of synthetic indignation.
What we are concerned about it to protect people who are suffering from these conditions, whereas what the hon. Member wants all the while is to make as difficult as possible the procedure to clear up the sites and put them in order.

Mr. Walker-Smith: No.

Mr. Bevan: According to the Amendment, if any objection were taken by any

possessor or part-possessor of a site, a local inquiry would have to be held.

Mr. Walker-Smith: A hearing, not an inquiry.

Mr. Bevan: A hearing would have to be held. All the time the Opposition are continually asking us to, economise and not have special administrative machinery, but whenever we bring a Bill before the House which deals with property we are told we must keep in existence a vast apparatus for listening to every objection which is made. It would be entirely out of keeping with the purposes of the Bill if we had to hold a hearing every time an objection was made, and we ought not to agree to such a proposal.
Where the Minister is satisfied that the objection is a solid one, an inquiry can be held, but to insist that a hearing shall be held every time seems to us to be entirely unnecessary. What I am afraid of—I put this to hon. Members in all parts of the Committee—is that if we import into the Bill too much machinery, too many steps, then the local authorities—after all, the Bill is only permissive—will be disinclined to use it. We want local authorities to be active and willing agents for the purpose of clearing up the sites. Having got that main purpose in mind, we ought not to start doing something which the local authorities may find too objectionable to cause them to do their work. I really hope that the Committee will not press the Amendment.

Commander Galbraith: I base the greater part of my argument on the fact that there is very little difference between the machinery in the Bill and that which is in the Act of 1946. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) has pointed out, the delay, if there is any additional delay, is so slight as to be negligible. Neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary addressed themselves in any way to that point. They spoke of us trying to insist upon the whole panoply—that was the word used by the Parliamentary Secretary—when in fact there is little or no difference between the two.

Mr. Bevan: If there is no substantial difference between the two, we cannot be offending to the extent which the hon. Member for Hertford suggests. The real


difference is this: that if an objection, except on grounds of price, is made, the Minister must in every case hold a hearing. In other words he must, as the hon. Member for Hertford has suggested, be just in the sense that both sides must be heard. That is a very substantial difference indeed; so substantial, we say, as to make it difficult for local authorities to exercise these powers.

Commander Galbraith: I am sorry, but I simply cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that point at all. Consideration has to be given to the objection if objection is taken, and time has to be spent by someone going into it. His time might just as well be spent hearing from word of mouth what the objection is as studying it in writing. No additional delay whatever is caused by that procedure. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford said, there is a very great difference otherwise.
The Parliamentary Secretary rather twitted me for having said that people could not put their case so well in writing, but if he had a case would he be as satisfied if he could only put it in writing and could not hear the arguments from the other side? Of course he would not. There is all the difference in the world between having a hearing in which one is able to hear the arguments against one's

case, and merely putting it in writing and getting a reply that the Minister does not agree. One would begin to wonder if he had considered that or this point in the letter, because it would seem from the reply that he had not done so; but if there is a hearing, one is perfectly certain that every consideration has been given to every aspect of the matter. One is much more likely to accept the result as just, not merely as something done as a matter of course, whether one happens to be right or wrong.

There is no substance in the arguments put forward by the right hon. Gentleman or by the Parliamentary Secretary. As for the remarks of the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest), we are all in agreement. I hope he will compare the procedure in the Bill with that in the Act, and if he can then say that we are creating any delay I shall be willing to listen to him; but I am convinced that nothing of the kind is in question. Very regretfully indeed, I have to insist on the Amendment and we shall go to a Division on it.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 102: Noes, 40.

Division No. 286.]
AYES
[12.29 p.m.


Albu, A. H.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Nally, W.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Field, Capt. W. J.
Naylor, T. E.


Attewell, H. C.
Follick, M.
Orbach, M.


Austin, H. Lewis
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Pargiter, G A


Ayles, W. H.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Parker, J.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Gibson, C. W.
Parkin, B. T.


Bartlett, V.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Piratin, P.


Battley, J. R.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Popplewell, E.


Berry, H.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Price, M. Philips


Beswick, F.
Holman, P.
Ranger, J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Horabin, T. L.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Binns, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bramall, E. A.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Royle, C.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Kenyon, C.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Burden, T. W.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Champion, A. J.
Lipson, D. L.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Skinnard, F. W.


Crawley, A.
Longden, F.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Dai[...]es, P.
McAdam, W.
Solley, L. J.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
McEntee, V. La. T.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Swingler, S.


Delargy, H. J.
Mellish, R. J.
Symonds, A. L.


Dodds, N. N.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Morley, R.
Tiffany, S.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Moyle, A.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.




Viant, S. P.
Wigg, George
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Wilkins, W. A.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Warbey, W. N.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Yates, V. F.


Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Bowden.




NOES


Baldwin, A. E.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Bower, N.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hope, Lord J.
Smithers, Sir W.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Keeling, E. H.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Channon, H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Walkar-Smith, D.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Fox, Sir G.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.



Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Mellor, Sir J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Mr. Studholme and


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Brigadier Mackeson.


Gridley, Sir A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.



Question put, and agreed to.

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Hare: I beg to move, in page 2, line 45, after "enable," to insert:
the necessary licences to be obtained and.
This is a point which I hope the Minister will accept after the arguments on previous Amendments, in which a certain amount of heat has been engendered. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise that by this Amendment we are trying to assist him and carry out what he said in his Second reading speech:
I want to make it clear that it is not proposed that the terms of this Bill if it becomes an Act should act to the disadvantage of a person in obtaining a licence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 1068.]
By inserting these proposed words we would ensure that the point is looked after. We all realise that it is not so much time taken in carrying out work which delays development of a site, or the erection of the building. Much of the delay is caused by the actual obtaining of a licence. This difficulty may be increased in the future, as there is a tendency to tighten up on licences. There are occasions on which, when a local authority has used up its quota of licences for a purpose such as this, they say to the applicant, "If you come back next month, or in a few months', time, we may be able to help you, but we cannot help you at the moment." These words are proposed in order to cover such a situation. I think they tie up with the Minister's wishes and I hope that on this very small point he will accept the Amendment.

Colonel Dower: During the Second Reading the Minister interrupted my speech and we had rather a passage of arms on this point. Perhaps since then the right hon. Gentleman in spite of his many arduous duties, may have had time to give consideration to this point. He interrupted me, and I am glad he did so, to say that he had increased the range for repair work to be done to such a height that there was no excuse at all for repairs or building not to be undertaken. I have been very polite to the right hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that I cannot continue to be polite, because he shows an extreme ignorance of the practical builder.
I am a builder and I constantly have to apply for licences. The right hon. Gentleman shows extreme ignorance of the difficulty of obtaining licences. When he authorises certain work to be done that is merely the start of the matter. One of the first things one comes up against is that the Ministry of Works, while agreeing that it is a reasonable project, say that one must wait a little longer, or they ask for specifications and, when these are rendered, they often sit on them for six weeks or two months. Then they say that the Board of Trade would not like so much controlled material to be used and ask if so much iron and steel can be cut out.
That is reasonable when there is a shortage of iron and steel, but it is appallingly difficult. The Ministry of Works are performing their functions, the Board of Trade are performing their functions, which alter from time to time in regard to scarce material and, in addition, there


is the War Damage Commission. The right hon. Gentleman may be the only person with a large amount of money not minding what amount of his private fortune he spends, but those who want to get repairs done, want to be assured that they will get recovery from the War Damage Commission. The Commission have to be asked for prior approval before the work is undertaken and hon. Members must realise that the question of getting prior approval from the War Damage Commission is most essential. It means that if a claim is sent in for work which has been done the Commission often knock off 20 per cent. or 30 per cent., and the builder has to argue about the particular repair which is being done, while the Commission have the advantage.
Last week I asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—I was trying to help the right hon. Gentleman—whether he could not hasten the giving of prior approval for war damage repairs. His reply was that he could do no such thing. He said:
The War Damage Commission tell me that they are still making about 8,000 payments a week on claims for work already carried out, …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 105.]
—therefore, they could not deal with applications for advance approval of work any more quickly than at present. In other words, the War Damage Commission are prepared to inspect the work when it is being carried out but may keep one waiting for as long as two, three or four months before they are prepared to give approval in advance of its being carried out.
The Minister may think that I am trying to waste time but this is a very important point. If the right hon. Gentleman had to carry out £5,000 worth of war damage repairs the first thing to occur to him would be whether he would recover the cost from the War Damage Commission. The second thing to occur to him would be whether it would not be a good thing to get the Commission to give advance approval of the work. That is a delay which to begin with may extend over two to three months. By raising the limit on the amount of work that can be done the Minister is encouraging the carrying out of repairs but

when the question is one of making an assessment of what is a reasonable time, he must take into consideration this machinery which the Government themselves have set up and under which only is it possible to do the actual repairs.

Mr. Bevan: Hon. Members, I think, misunderstand the situation a little, and perhaps I might be able to clear up that misunderstanding. The assumption here is that there is a conflict between the local authority that wants the site and the owner who wants a licence to carry out work upon it; that the local authority will, as it were, jump the claim and the individual will not be able to get possession of his site to do the work which he thought he would get a licence to do. The fact is that no such conflict exists.
No one would be more delighted than the local authority if the owner could take possession of the site and carry out the work because that work would require planning permission and would under such conditions make good the site. It would no longer be a site which the local authority would desire to enter to clear up nuisances. The local authority would be delighted because it would be able to say in such a case, "We shall not have to spend the ratepayers' money in putting this site into an agreeable condition."
Therefore, hon. Members have all along this morning, it seems to me, been seeking protection against local authorities as though they are eager and anxious to spend the ratepayers' money on putting these sites in order. I have met representatives of local authorities on this matter, and I can assure hon. Members that although they are anxious to get powers to do what they can to put these sites in good order, they are not anxious to spend money unnecessarily upon them and would be only too pleased if the owners could get possession and do the work.
What we are really dealing with is a set of circumstances in which it is physically impossible for the nation to allow all this work to be carried out now, and accordingly some part of that work will have to be delayed until more necessary work is done. In the meantime, the aim is to try to make these sites as agreeable as possible.
12.45 p.m.
Regarding the matter from that angle there is surely no reason for the apprehensions which are now being expressed and which are embodied in the Amendment. The Amendment means that the Minister must be satisfied that the individual may obtain a licence. A licence may not be possible but the person concerned might say that he was in process of obtaining a licence. The hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cocker-mouth (Colonel Dower) pointed out that quite often some months elapse—even a much longer time than that—but in each case unpredictable delays may occur in obtaining the licence and in the meantime the site would still be in its derelict condition.
What we have said is that the licence must have been obtained or—and the Minister would do this administratively—if application had been made for the licence by the owner before the local authority had asked the permission of the Minister to enter into possession of the site, the Minister would obviously satisfy himself that the applicant for the licence had a reasonable chance of getting it. In that event he would say to the local authority, "It is not necessary for you to enter into possession in this case because before very long a licence will be granted and the owner himself will be carrying out the work."
Hon. Members must realise that the local authority and the owner must both be clear; there must not be any ambiguity about the situation. The distinction must be kept quite clear because if the rights of both are obscure neither will act and the sites will be left exactly as they are. Under Clause 7 provision is made for the owner to reassert his rights. In other words, the local authority may have been in possession of a site and carried out some works upon it, but the owner may later say, "I have obtained my licence." In that case Clause 7 provides that the owner reenters. So we have in fact tried to cover the point, always on the assumption that no one is anxious to spend public money on these sites if the owners can get the necessary licence to carry out the work.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: The Minister has clarified the position to a considerable extent; he has certainly been clearer than the Bill. What some of

us had strongly in mind was the situation that not only is there a conflict of interest between Ministries in this matter, as has been explained to the Committee by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith and Cocker mouth (Colonel Dower), but that there is surely another very important conflicting machine, the local authority itself. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that many local authorities are in a position of great difficulty when allotting their priorities and granting licences.
One can well see circumstances arising where, in the case of a concentrated allotment, an owner of one of these bombed sites who is anxious to develop it has made his application. The local authority, when considering these applications, have come to the conclusion—and after all they are the people on the spot who have to make the decisions—that this application must take its place-a long way down the queue. They have many other important tasks on their hands on which they are to spend the ratepayers' money—schools and the like—and they desire to push on with them. In such circumstances they may say, "It is true that this is a blitzed site, it is true that the owner desires to develop it, but in our view that project must await its turn a considerable distance down the queue."
The Minister comforted me a little when he said that the fact that the owner had applied for a licence would be an important factor to be taken into consideration. There is, however, a great difference between that and having obtained a licence. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to indicate that the owner might say, "I am in the course of obtaining a licence," which is a very difficult thing for anyone to say.

Mr. Bevan: He would only be able to say that if he had applied.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: All I am saying is that there is a difference between an application and being in course of getting a licence. That is an important point which the Minister has now cleared up.
The right hon. Gentleman may be averse to inserting these words into the Bill. I belong to the old school of thought which likes to see firmly written


into the Bill what is the intention of this House when the time comes for its interpretation. We have had many similar cases in this Parliament where the Minister has said, "I shall not do this or that. My intention lies in another direction. My remarks are now on record, and those interested can read the Debates which took place in this House." All that is true, but it is not the law of the land. It is very nice for the right hon. Gentleman to come to the House and make comforting and agreeable speeches which may allay certain fears, but they are not the law of the land. If only for that reason, although there is very little between us now, I for one should be happier if these words, or something to the same effect, could be written into the Statute.

Mr. Sparks: It seems to me that the Opposition are confusing one or two things. In this Bill we are not concerned with the actual re-building on the site of what existed before. The local authorities are not proposing to do that. They are merely proposing, in certain circumstances, to take over the site and tidy it up. In many cases the doing of these jobs will be very slow, but the hon. and gallant Member is talking about reconstruction on a site, which is a totally different thing. It is perfectly obvious that at such time as an owner is able to get a licence to re-build his war destroyed building on that site, the local authority automatically will stand aside. I think it is important to get that clear.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I do not think that the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) was in his place when we were discussing the previous Amendment. While this Bill is temporary in intention, I think it likely that a number of these buildings and clearances will have to stand for a considerable time—20 or 30 years—owing to the circumstances in which we live. It would not surprise me if under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act this Bill was extended, and it would therefore not be true to call it temporary.

Mr. Sparks: In the present Bill there is a maximum of ten years.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The discussion has ranged rather widely on what is a very short and simple point, and the Minster must take his share of the blame, because

he did introduce into his speech on this Amendment rather wider matters than are covered by this very simple Amendment. This Clause gives the Minister the right to postponement where the owner is able and willing to carry out the work himself, and that is a very right and necessary power. This Amendment is not concerned with the power to postpone at all. It is concerned with a much narrower point, the period of postponement.
All this Amendment seeks to do is to make clear that the period of postponement should not be the period which would be appropriate for the physical carrying out of the work, but that it should be an inclusive period, taking account of the necessary preliminary work of getting the licence as well. That is the only point which arises on this Amendment, and it is a very short point. I am not sure myself whether in the reading of the Clause as it stands the meaning of the Amendment is not already implicit.

Mr. Bevan: Mr. Bevan indicated assent.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The Minister nods. I am not quite sure, it is difficult to be sure, but I am glad to hear that the intention is that it should be. If there is that intention, then I think that to put it beyond all doubt it would be well to incorporate these words.

Mr. Bevan: It is only necessary to put protective words into a statute if it can be shown that the normal operation of the self-interest of the parties concerned makes it necessary to do so. In this case, the self-interest of both the local authority and the prospective possessor of a licence work together and not against each other. It also would be in the interest of the Minister and of public administration to restrain a local authority from entering into possession of a site, if in fact it was practicable for the work to be carried out by the possessor of a licence. Therefore, in such circumstances all forces move to the common good and there is no need to put protective words into this statute.

Commander Galbraith: Like my hon. and gallant Friend I would rather see the words in the statute. We have heard the good intentions of the right hon. Gentleman, but the Bill still lacks words which would make those good intentions


statutory. I would like to say a word in connection with what the right hon. Gentleman has said on one point. He has laid it down that the self-interest of both parties is one and the same. I would agree that in the great majority of cases that is true, but there is one case where it is not true. That is in connection with the provision for the owner being able to regain possession during the current five or ten years, to set about building. It may well be that the local authority might have a temporary building on that particular site which it wanted to retain for one of its statutory purposes, which it is empowerd to do, and therefore the interests would not be one and the same.
The right hon. Gentleman has cleared the ground very considerably. He has told us plainly what are his intentions, and if he will not put in the words which we think ought and should be put in, then I would say to my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment that perhaps he might be prepared, having made the point, to leave the matter.

Colonel Dower: Is the Minister saying that he is satisfied that the owner is able to carry out repairs providing he has applied for a licence?

Mr. Bevan: This is a very simple point indeed. The local authority has applied to the Minister for possession of a site. The Minister informs the owner of the site. The owner may say, "I am willing to develop this site," and we know that most of them are. The question is, is the owner able to obtain a licence? If the owner has started the operation of obtaining a licence, if in fact he has applied for it, then the Minister in those circumstances would satisfy himself about the fate of that application before he would give the local authority power to possess the site. It is not sufficient for the owner to say, "I am ready," because so very many of them are ready. In this case many are called but few are chosen.

Colonel Dower: That is a compliment to the site owner.

Mr. Bevan: It may be a compliment to the site owner to get his property back, but here, as I have said before, there is no conflict between the interests of the local authority and the potential owner of the licence.

Mr. Hare: I am sorry that the Committee has been kept so long on this point. I think the Minister was perfectly fair when he nodded to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith). I believe it can be said that the Bill as it is worded does in fact cover—in the mind of the Minister—a reasonable period for the issue of a licence. If, therefore, the Minister agrees, I think it is a pity that he is not prepared to make it more clear. I do not think that it is likely to cause any extra delay. If he will allow time for the issue of a licence and also allow time for the construction and completion of this particular work, why not make that clearer by accepting my Amendment?

Mr. Bevan: Why bother, if it is not necessary?
Amendment negatived.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

1.0 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not propose to detain the Committee for very long though, of course, it is not unusual for hon. Members to address the Committee on this Question. The only reason why I intend to do so now is that I wish to make a brief reference to certain observations made by the Minister earlier. This is a Clause which deals with the compulsory power of possession. It is a procedure Clause. The Minister said that the attitude towards this Clause of hon. Members on this side in general and myself in particular betokened a lack of sympathy with the principles of the Bill. That is not so. The question of the principles of the Bill was rightly defined in the Second Reading speeches and I stand by what I said then in regard to sympathy with the objects of the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman really must not think that hon. Members must repeat everything in Committee that they said on Second Reading or that, in default of such repetition, they may be accused of not having any interest in the principles of the Bill. It is wrong to say that. A considerable portion of my speech on Second Reading was devoted to questions of amenity. I regret the Minister's suggestion that I should be out of sympathy with the local authority point of view. That is far from being the case. I am in good relations with local authorities both


in my constituency and elsewhere. I happen to be a vice-president of the Urban District Councils Association, and it is wrong and gratuitous of the Minister to make that suggestion.
Finally, Major Milner, I am sure that I shall have your approval of my next observation. It is clear that hon. Members would be outside the Rules of Order if they were to repeat ad nauseam points of principle suitable to a Second Reading Debate every time an Amendment on some technical point was discussed. Therefore, it is wrong and improper for the Minister to use such an occasion to try to impute to this side of the Committee an absence of interest in the main point of the Bill. I sincerely hope that he will not see fit to make such observations again.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(USE AND DISPOSAL OF LAND BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.)

Mr. Hare: I beg to move, in page 3, line 28, to leave out from "for," to "or," in line 31, and to insert:
any temporary purpose which will be beneficial to the amenities of the neighbourhood.
This Amendment is designed to ensure that the amenities in a neighbourhood are properly preserved. All of us realise that local authorities, like individuals, are not above criticism on this question. Local authorities have been known to be guilty of reducing amenities in certain cases instead of improving them. This Amendment would show local authorities that they must not run into the danger from the point of view of expediency of producing something rather worse than what already exists when they take over a site. It is designed to prevent local authorities from removing certain detrimental aspects and replacing them with something rather worse. It would prevent them from jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
It is clear that owing to the temporary nature of the Bill, which has been stressed continuously by the Minister, there may be erected on these sites temporary buildings which after a short time may prove to be a nuisance detrimental to the people who live in the area. I do not say that coffee stalls, sandwich stalls or ice cream

kiosks are necessarily in themselves detrimental, but there are occasions when such temporary buildings, which used to supply what may at one time have been a steady demand, may prove uncongenial to the people who live near the blitzed sites.
I suggest that local authorities should be kept on their toes. If this Amendment is accepted, it will be laid down clearly that when they take over a site which they consider to be detrimental to the amenities of a neighbourhood, they will be told by this Bill that in doing so they must ensure that they use it temporarily, as is laid down, to improve its amenity value. I think that the Minister will be sympathetic to the idea behind this Amendment.

Mr. Bevan: The view that stands behind the Bill is that the local authority is a better guardian of the amenities of a district than is the owner of the property concerned. Otherwise, there would be no need for the Bill. Therefore, the judge of this matter must be the local authority and the Minister. Even hon. Members opposite have considered that the public authority is a better guardian of the public welfare than any private interests. Therefore, the body to decide whether what they have done is better than what would have been done by private interests, is the local authority.
If, however, the hon. Member wishes to import these words into the Bill so that the local authority can do something rather more than it has a statutory right to do, I would ask him to remember what that involves. Would he consider that under the words proposed the local authority would have the right to put up shops?

Mr. Hare: No. The right hon. Gentleman knows that under this Bill it would not be for a local authority to put up permanent buildings.

Mr. Bevan: I did not say permanent buildings.

Mr. Hare: Temporary shops are not provided for under the Bill.

Mr. Bevan: They would be under the terms of this Amendment. The word "amenities" would cover that. The Amendment would enable a local authority to put up shops because the word


"amenities" could be held to cover a variety of subjects, as was pointed out during the Second Reading. The Amendment would widen the powers of local authorities, and we do not want to do that. Also, it would be held that perhaps an amenity would be a positive and not a negative thing. In other words, if a local authority cleared a site and left the matter at that, it might be satisfied, but it could not be said that a cleared site was in itself an amenity. In that case in every instance the local authority would have to do something about the site in addition to clearing it. We want the local authority to be free. We want it either to clear the site in such circumstances and to leave it alone, or in other cases to clear the site and do something about it, such as laying it out as a garden or a playing field or something of that sort. These words would be more constructive but more expensive than the words in the Bill.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The difficulty is a simple one. It may well be, as the Minister said, that the precise words of this Amendment cannot resolve it. I rather sympathise with what he said about the use of the word "amenities." I think that I drew attention during the Second Reading to the very little interpretation which exists as to the precise meaning in law of the word "amenities." The difficulty as I see it, has nothing to do with the will of local authorities to do well by the amenities. It is simply related to the comparatively short term of their lease.
The trouble is that the word "work" can embrace a very wide range of activities. Every hon. Member would be in agreement that it is a good thing that they should normally do upon those sites that part of the work which is defined in the interpretation Clause as "the laying out and cultivation of gardens." That is obviously a good thing and beneficial to the amenities of the sites, but, when it comes to the erection of buildings, we are bound to ask what kind of buildings local authorities are going to erect under these powers. The object of the Amendment is to try to ensure that such buildings as are erected shall be only the types of buildings which will add to and not detract from the amenities.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about erecting shops. I do not know that there

would be any objection in principle—I am not talking about the law—if such a proposal was for the good of the community, but it would be a shop which would come down after five or 10 years, and the local authority would have no benefit or goodwill or the right of a new lease under the Landlord and Tenant Act, because that case is excluded from the Statute.

Mr. Bevan: What about prolonging the Act?

Mr. Walker-Smith: We are bound sometimes to attach weight to what the right hon. Gentleman says, though we do not always do so. That being so, any shop erected under these provisions would be a temporary shack or structure, and the experience of hon. Members is that these buildings, so far from adding to the amenities, normally detract from them. That is the difficulty which we have in mind, and the Minister has not resolved that difficulty by what he said. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out the difficulties of our Amendment, but did not meet the difficulties of his own case, and if he could be a little more helpful we would be obliged to him.

Mr. Bevan: I will help the hon. Gentleman at once. He has informed us, in an unnecessary passage earlier on, that he is a vice-president of the Urban District Councils' Association. Why does he not display more confidence in the local authorities? Why on earth does he assume that the local authorities are going to put up unseemly structures? That is the whole point. The hon. Gentleman cannot lay down any better definition of amenities than a local authority itself would be able to apply to itself in a particular case. We cannot make generalisations about amenities, and, in fact, the hon. Gentleman said so and reminded us of it on Second Reading. Therefore, what is an amenity must be left to the local authority in any particular set of circumstances.
If it is not amenity, and if the local authority has in fact done something on the site more disfiguring than the site itself was before the local authority entered upon it, the local citizens can be relied upon to bring the local authority to book. There is nothing at all here that we can do other than waste the time of the Committee. If the term


"amenity" is brought in, it might mean an extension of the powers of local authorities being put upon the Statute Book, and hon. Members would not want us to do that here.

1.15 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman saying that he thought more power should be given to the local authorities, because I entirely agree with him, but he was a little naughty earlier when he replied to my hon. Friend who sits behind me. I do not know whether it is that the lunch hour is drawing near or what it is, but to make the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman did was not only ungracious but unfair. It is perfectly obvious that the words in the Amendment to which his attention has been drawn particularly are, "will be beneficial to the amenities."

Mr. Bevan: Who is to decide that?

Commander Galbraith: The local authority will decide it, and we do not desire to take that power away from them. If the Minister will read the Amendment, he will see that it allows them to put down any works which they are entitled to do in accordance with their statutory functions. There is nothing here to say that it has to be something which will improve the amenities; of course, not.

Mr. Bevan: If he will allow me, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite wrong here, and, if he persists, I shall have to accept these words in another place, but he will be very sorry. What we are afraid of is that, if these words are imported into the Bill, it will not be possible in some circumstances for local authorities to clear a site and leave it, because it may be that their interpretation of it would be that they had to do something more than that. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will know that in some instances it would be sufficient to clear a site and leave it as an open space, and do nothing more positive about it. In another case, if the local authority has the power to do anything which adds to the amenities of the area, that would add to their existing statutory functions, and we do not want that in a small Bill of this sort, though, if insisted upon, we are prepared to consider it.

Commander Galbraith: We are trying to make certain that nothing is erected which takes away from the amenities which now exist, and when I said on Second Reading that I hoped this would not mean a whole lot of unsightly temporary erections, the House generally was with me. I hope the Minister will think over the matter once again in order to see if he can strengthen the existing provisions of the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN ENACTMENTS.)

Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, in page 4, line 42, after "1933," to insert:
and Part V of the London Government Act, 1939.
This Amendment merely repairs an omission in the drafting of the Bill. Part V of the London Government Act, of 1939, corresponds in London to Part VII of the Local Government Act, 1933, in the provinces. The provisions of the latter Act relating to appropriations and disposal of land by local authorities have been excluded as not being appropriate here.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9.—(POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TO DO WORK WITHOUT TAKING POSSESSION.)

Mr. Hare: I beg to move, in page 6, line 34, to leave out "twenty-four hours," and to insert "seven days."
We are not quarrelling with the general principle that a local authority should carry out work that would put a site into such a condition as will render it no longer detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood, but we say that this suggestion of merely giving a notification of 24 hours before power of entry is granted, is one which should not be accepted by this Committee. We have, therefore, substituted what we think is the more reasonable period of a week's notice to be given to the owner of such a site before entry is made upon it.
It used to be a fashionable dictum to say that an Englishman's home is his castle. That is somewhat out of date, it seems; but I do suggest to the Minister that to say that a local authority shall be allowed as a matter of right to enter upon somebody's property within 24 hours, when, in fact, the owner of that property may, in all probability, not have received the communication, is an unreasonable suggestion.
We are not dealing with a rush job. These sites have been in existence since the war. They are war damaged sites. We have waited four and a half and five and six years in some cases for this work to be done. Therefore, suddenly to produce in an Act of Parliament, presumably only on the grounds of immediate urgency, the right to enter on to property after only 24 hours' notification is surely an unreasonable proposition.
I think we in this Committee should, as long as we are not damaging in any way the rights and the needs of the community, try to preserve, where we can, the rights of the individual. Here we are suggesting that after 24 hours the local authority should be empowered to enter upon a site, when we know perfectly well that if we pass this Clause as it stands now it will be perfectly in order for the local authority to send a letter to the owner of the site by a Saturday afternoon post knowing full well that that particular notification will not arrive until the Monday morning; and as the Clause now stands the local authority will have every right to enter upon the site and to start the work before the owner has had any chance at all of receiving the notification.
I feel that when the public do not get all that satisfaction when, as individuals, they deal with Government Departments, then we ourselves, when laying down legislation, should not impose really impossible conditions upon individuals. We as Members of Parliament are in a sense fortunate, for we do get quicker replies, when we write to the Minister or to his Parliamentary Secretary, than probably other individual citizens do who may make inquiries of the Ministry of Health. Even so, we do not expect lightning answers. We say we do not get them, perhaps; but we do get a better service; and we accept the fact that there may be

certain delay before proper answers can be delivered to our inquiries. We know there is no need for great urgency. There is not that need, and so I hope that the Minister will be reasonable, since this Amendment is a reasonable one, and will substitute a week's notice for notice of 24 hours.

Mr. Bevan: It is very difficult to deal with some of the Amendments which have been moved today, and which, as I have said, clearly would wreck the whole purpose of the Bill—and this Amendment in particular—with any patience whatsoever.

Colonel Dower: Oh!

Mr. Bevan: Let the hon. and gallant Member think for a minute what is the purpose of this. The purpose of Clause 9 is to enable a local authority to enter upon a bombed site which the owner has, neglected, which is filthy, and which is a nuisance to the neighbourhood. The purpose is to enable the local authority to enter upon such a site and tidy it up and; leave it—in other words, to do what the owner ought to do and fails to do. And because he does not do it the whole neighbourhood is polluted. Subsection (3) of the Clause makes the local authority, having done the work and cleared off, liable to compensate the negligent owner for any disturbance. Is it seriously suggested in such circumstances as that that any great disservice is done to the owner?
I have never heard, in the whole of my experience, of such tenderness as is being shown today for the owners of these bombed sites. The fact is we are getting complaints all over the place, from all around. Now the hon. Member seriously suggests, as a member of the London County Council, that though there is an abomination on the site, a notice shall be put up to tell the owner to do the work in seven days' time.

Mr. Hare: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that if a site has become a public nuisance or a danger to health, the county council or any local authority already has power to deal with it.

Mr. Bevan: There is far more than that involved here. People tip all sorts of stuff on to the sites whenever they like, and it is left there, and it is now seriously suggested that we should have the


pompous position that this eyesore should be there for seven days during which notice is served on the owner by the local authority, saying, "If the work is not done we propose to do it." I have never heard in all my life in Parliament of such a fragile vehicle carrying such a load of nonsense.

Colonel Dower: The right hon. Gentleman blows hot, and then he blows cold. He will probably blow up one day—quite rightly, perhaps; and at not so distant a date, perhaps. The right hon. Gentleman has today paid far more glowing tributes to owners than we have on this side of the Committee. He has said, "Of course, if an owner is liable he will apply for a licence." I should not like to say so. There are some very bad owners who neglect applying for licences.

Mr. Bevan: There is no licences involved here.

Colonel Dower: I said that the right hon. Gentleman has given an indication that owners have a very strong sense of their responsibilities, and yet at another time he has said that they are the worst people who ever lived, and that the sooner they are all thrown down the drain the better.

Mr. Austin: Hear, hear.

Colonel Dower: Certain hon. Members on that side are far more honest than the right hon. Gentleman, because they are consistent, at any rate. Consistency is a thing that we on this side always welcome. I should like to know what exactly the right hon. Gentleman's argument is. I should like to know exactly where I stand. From what he says, one minute I think I am a good boy and the next minute I think I am a bad boy. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean? If these sites are in this frightful state and all the rest of it, why has not some action already been taken? Sites do not get into an appalling state in one second. This means that the local authorities themselves have been inactive in the matter.

The Chairman: I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman can enter into a Second Reading speech on this matter. It is a small point, of whether

seven days' notice shall be substituted for 24 hours' notice.

Colonel Dower: That is the point I am trying to make. I will explain it carefully, and I am sure, Major Milner, you Will agree I am in Order. What I am saying is that the local authorities have neglected their duty if they have allowed these sites to remain so long, and have then suddenly wakened up to say, "We have to start this work in 24 hours and we shall give 24 hours' notice and no more." That is the point I am making.

Mr. Bevan: Clearly, that is a false point. If the offence was of a kind that the local authority had power at once to remedy, it would already have done so. The purpose of the Bill is to extend the powers of the local authorities.

Colonel Dower: I fail to follow the right hon. Gentleman. This notice of 24 hours is now being provided for in Measure after Measure. It appeared in the Coast Protection Bill the other day. Now it is being put in here. In every new Measure now there is this 24 hours' notice. I do honestly think, with all respect, that what my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) said lay behind this is indeed the case—that what the right hon. Gentleman really wants to do is to destroy individual liberty and freedom.

1.30 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I did not anticipate that I would have to take part in the Debate on this Amendment, but in view of the manner in which the Minister has received it, and the way in which he has worked himself up into what appears to be almost a form of rage about nothing in particular, I must say I think he is being too stupid for words.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. and gallant Member should have a little more—

Commander Galbraith: I am not giving way to the right hon. Gentleman this time. He has been interrupting throughout the whole of these proceedings, and has indeed been telling my hon. and gallant Friend how he should make his speech instead of letting him make it in his own way. The right hon. Gentleman can just remain on the bench this time while I finish what I have to say to him.
The Minister's indignation was quite ridiculous. What we desire is that reasonable notice shall be given. Now it is no good the right hon. Gentleman starting off to hunt owners for not having done their duty. He knows that in many cases that is quite untrue, and quite untenable. After all, it is not up to the owner of a property to be on guard day and night.

Mr. Bevan: Why not?

Commander Galbraith: Why so?

Mr. Bevan: Why not?

Commander Galbraith: I want to know first, why so?

Mr. Bevan: It is his property.

Commander Galbraith: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman just saying. "Why not?"

Mr. Bevan: I have said, because it is his property.

Commander Galbraith: Does the right hon. Gentleman maintain a guard over his property?

Mr. Bevan: There is somebody there all the time.

Commander Galbraith: Well, we shall leave it at that. There is no need whatsoever for the owner of property to have a constant guard on his property. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the whole neighbourhood being polluted, and nonsense of that kind.

Mr. Bevan: Hear, hear.

Commander Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, referring to his own property. That would be sufficient to pollute any neighbourhood. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, the right hon. Gentleman asked for it: he can take it. The right hon. Gentleman is just talking ridiculous nonsense. If any property is a public nuisance the local authority has already a statutory duty to see that it is put right. The right hon. Gentleman is just behaving very stupidly on this Amendment. He talks about it being "a fragile vehicle carrying such a load of nonsense." How very stupid, childish and ridiculous. The fact of the matter is, the right hon. Gentleman needs his lunch and he ought to go and get it.
It has become customary in Acts passed by this Government always to introduce the very shortest notice. It really is not necessary; and in this case in particular it is not necessary. I know that in some cases in which there is a 24-hour limit on giving statutory notice I get notices weeks ahead. There is no need for this provision for only 24 hours notice. Let us make it something reasonable. Seven days is perfectly reasonable in this case. There is nothing for the right hon. Gentleman to work himself up about on this. Local authorities do not really want to appear within 24 hours to do something and they will not do so. They can quite easily give seven days' notice; the work will proceed with agreement on every side; we shall get co-operation, and the thing will be done very well. I hope my hon. Friend will stand by this Amendment and take it to a Division unless the Minister gives way.

Mr. Bevan: I also hope that the population of London will have followed this Debate, and have realised how much more tender the Opposition is for the property rights—

Commander Galbraith: For reasonableness.

Mr. Bevan: —of the owners of blitzed sites than they are for the welfare and health of the London people.

Mr. Hare: I think it would be very unreasonable of anybody to suggest that I should withdraw this Amendment, in view of the extraordinary behaviour of the right hon. Gentleman. I suppose he is peevish because he is peckish. For some unknown reason, he has gone off the handle. He knows perfectly well that no local authority would demand that they should be able to give 24 hours' notice rather than a week's notice to the owner of a blitzed site. He knows that is not a demand which would be made to him by any local authority, because it is not needed. Local authorities already have a great deal on their hands, and they will not need to do everything required on these sites within 24 hours of giving notice. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has behaved in this most unreasonable and foolish manner, and I hope my hon. Friends will join with me in support of this Amendment when we divide.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Before the Committee takes a decision on this Amendment, I should like to say that I think the right hon. Gentleman has addressed himself to this simple Amendment in language quite unsuited to the occasion, or the purpose or spirit of the Amendment. One always knows when the right hon. Gentleman has a bad case, because when he is at his most rhetorical, and when his synthetic indignation is at his warmest, his case is at its worst; and it is notorious that his synthetic indignation is often so very warm because his case is often so very bad. This is just another illustration of it.
The Minister talked about abominations existing on these sites. There is nothing in this Bill about abominations. This is the fifth year of this Parliament, and the fifth year of the right hon. Gentleman's tenure of office. If these abominations demand instantaneous treatment, within 24 hours of notice being given, what has been happening during these five years? Why do we only hear about it for the first time in the fifth year of his tenure of office? [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Deritend (Mr. Longden) has a point to put perhaps he will stand up and put it. As he does not stand up I assume he has no point to put, so perhaps he will observe the Rules of the House and when seated remain silent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Nobody in this Committee can lightly accuse me of any lack of courtesy in

giving way when any hon. Member has a point to put, but I am surely entitled to ask hon. Members not to do so from a sedentary position.

The right hon. Gentleman has clearly, for political purposes, drawn an entirely fanciful picture of the effect of this Amendment. My hon. Friend, with his very extensive experience of local authority matters, is quite right when he says that there is no demand from local authorities, or from the local government world, to have these 24-hour powers. It is quite beyond contemplation that local authorities will suddenly charge down on these sites, to give 24 hours' notice, and then do the work. I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman has taken the view of representative bodies of local authorities whether 24 hours' notice or seven days' notice is more suitable in their view. If he had, no doubt he would have so informed us. The 24-hour period is unreasonably short. If there is any question of a public nuisance existing on these sites there are already very adequate powers for that to be dealt with quite apart from this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has chosen to make this very constructive and moderate suggestion of my hon. Friend the occasion for a party polemic of little relevance and doubtful taste. I hope the Committee will support my hon. Friend.

Question put, "That 'twenty-four hours' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 47.

Division No. 287.]
AYES
[1.40 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Daines, P.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Albu, A. H.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)


Attewell, H. C.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Austin, H. Lewis
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Leslie, J. R.


Ayles, W. H.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lindgren, G. S.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Delargy, H. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. &lt;ob/&gt; [...]


Barton, C.
Dodds, N. N.
Longden, F.


Battley, J. R.
Driberg, T. E. N.
McAdam, W.


Benson, G.
Dumpleton, C. W.
McEntee, V. La. T.


Berry, H.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bing, G. H. C.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Binns, J.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Blenkinsop, A.
Follick, M.
Mellish, R. J.


Bowden, H. W.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Ganiey, Mrs. C. S.
Mitchison, G. R.


Bramall, E. A.
Gibson, C. W.
Morley, R.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Guy, W. H.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Brown, George (Belper)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Moyle, A.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Nally, W.


Burden, T. W.
Herbison, Miss M.
Naylor, T. E.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Holman, P.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Callaghan, James
Horabin, T. L.
Orbach, M.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Pargiter, G. A.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Parker, J.


Cove, W. G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Parkin, B. T.




Piratin, P.
Skinnard, F. W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Popplewell, E.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Price, M. Philips
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Warbey, W. N.


Pursey, Comdr. H.
Solley, L. J.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Ranger, J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Weitzman, D.


Rees-Williams, D. R.
Sparks, J. A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Robens, A.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon Edith
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Symonds, A. L.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Royle, C.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Wyatt, W.


Scott-Elliot, W.
Tiffany, S.
Yates, V. F.


Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Viant, S. P.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wilkins.




NOES


Baldwin, A. E.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bower, N.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Renton, D.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hope, Lord J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Howard, Hon. A.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Byers, Frank
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Carson, E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Smithers, Sir W.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Davidson, Viscountess
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Teeling, William


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Fox, Sir G.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Walker-Smith, D.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Mellor, Sir J.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Mr. Studholme and


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Colonel Wheatley.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I beg to move, in page 6, line 42, at the end, to add:
(4) Where in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section any land is fenced by the local authority, half the cost of such fencing may be recovered by the local authority from the owner of the land.
I hope that this Amendment will not engender the same amount of heat as was engendered on the previous Amendment. The point of it is this. I am advised, by those who are competent to express an opinion, that unless the site receiving attention under this Clause is immediately enclosed by fencing, the work done and the money spent on the site will be wasted. The most satisfactory form of fencing is, I understand, a chain-link fence with concrete posts, and the cost of such fencing is in the neighbourhood of £1 per yard. That is not a job which can be done by voluntary labour.
We have some 500 damaged sites in the Metropolitan Borough of Lambeth, and the cost of fencing alone will be anything up to £15,000. That may not seem a very large figure in relation to the sums with which the Parliamentary Secretary has to deal, but it is nevertheless a large sum to us. The cost will be even greater if the amount is covered by loans, however low the interest rate and however short the period for repayment may be.
1.45 p.m.
I submit it is right and proper that we should make some distinction between the two categories of sites dealt with in the Bill. The first category is the land that is completely taken over by the local authority, and the second category is the land or site which is entered upon for the purpose of making improvements, from which the owner may reap some benefit, and in respect of which the owner continues to use and possess the site in question. There is no valid reason why the owner of the latter category of site, with which this Clause is concerned, should not make some contribution to the benefits that will accrue to him personally. That is why this Amendment suggests that the owner should bear half the cost of fencing the site. He is not expected to pay for the cost of removal of debris or the clearance of the site, and it is surely not unreasonable to expect him to pay half of the cost of fencing.
The proposal will relieve ratepayers, most of whom are not members of the Tory-sponsored ratepayers' associations which exist up and down the country. Furthermore, if the owner wants to do the job himself he can get on with it without waiting for action on the part of the local authority and with or without such contribution as may be obtainable


from the War Damage Commission. As a matter of fact, public-spirited owners have already fenced in their sites. The Clause, which my Amendment seeks to improve, implies that the public-spirited owner who has already erected and paid for the cost of fencing, is to be the subject of discrimination compared with the owner whose land will be fenced in under the Clause at the ratepayers' expense. I know that the usual widow and orphan argument may be adduced; I mean the hypothetical widows who are marched on parade as soon as it is proposed to nationalise anything or to interfere with any proprietorial rights.
This is a problem which can be simply surmounted by carrying out the work and registering the appropriate charge for it. That is done when the local authority carries out repairs under the Public Health Act which the owner has refused to carry out, after the matter has been brought to his notice and the requisite orders have been obtained. We do not ask that the Exchequer or public funds should be subjected to increased burdens. The intention of the Amendment and of those who support me is to relieve the burden on ratepayers and taxpayers and to require from the owner a reasonable contribution towards the cost of fencing his site.

Mr. Mellish: I support on behalf of the borough which I represent, the Amendment which has been so ably moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton). We have found from experience that it becomes vitally necessary to fence these sites. It is not enough just to clear away the rubble and sow grass seed in the top soil. One must have fencing. In our borough, out of 282 bomb damage sites, the vast majority are owned privately. We have gone into the matter very carefully and we have found that the owners usually do not live in the borough. They have left the property in the hands of agents whose job in the past it has been to collect the rents. Bermondsey is one of the boroughs in which large parts have for many years been eyesores, to a large extent because of neglect of property in the hands of private owners.
During the war, Hitler did us some benefit by wiping out many of our black

spots. Today, because of the passing of a Bill to try to improve the amenities, we are, with voluntary helpers, trying to overcome our problems. We feel that it is not right, where private owners of property have not made the slightest attempt to improve it at all, that the local authorities should take on the whole burden. In many cases it is difficult to trace the owners of some of the sites. We think it only justice to the ordinary ratepayers that they should not be asked to shoulder the whole burden.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I have of course a great deal of sympathy with the point of view expressed by my hon. Friends. It may be true to say in some cases that some owners have carried out this work themselves and it seems unreasonable that other owners should not follow suit but should have to be required to do the same thing. We have given the matter very careful consideration. We feel, in spite of that, that it would be inequitable to give power to require this of every owner. I think hon. Members are aware that the Clause refers in the main to small sites. It might therefore be a great hardship to a small owner to meet half of what, as my hon. and gallant Friend says, may be a fairly considerable cost.
We apppreciate the points that have been raised as to the deterrent that the cost of fencing will be upon local authorities. I rather think that that was the consideration at the back of the minds of my hon. Friends when they put down the Amendment. As we indicated on Second Reading, the charge need not fall upon the local authorities all in one year. Suggestions have also been made that there might be more consideration given to the penalties imposed upon those who dump or seek to dump rubbish upon these sites. It may be better to deal with the problem along those lines rather than to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Sparks: I should like to refer to the point which has arisen as to cost. It will require many thousands of pounds to fence sites with chain link fencing. No one in his senses would erect chain link fencing around sites likely to be in the occupation of the local authority from only one year to a maximum of 10 years. That type of fencing is only used where it is necessary to have a boundary for many years, because the lifetime of the


fencing is between 50 and 60 years. Chain link fencing is unnecessary for the purpose envisaged in the Bill. Alternatives are available at a very much lower cost.
In most cases there is no fencing at all around these sites. The War Damage Commission would have some financial responsibility for its erection in cases where there is no fencing and the site is the result of enemy action. The War Damage Commission should bear the cost of the erection of suitable fencing. In all the circumstances, in view of the fact that the occupation of these sites cannot be for more than 10 years while most of them will be possessed for a very much shorter period of time, I think the Minister is right in saying that the Committee should not accept the Amendment.

2.0 p.m.

Mr. Yates: I cannot quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) that this is only a small matter. In a city like Birmingham it is a very large and important matter. I was recently in communication with the City Surveyor of the City of Birmingham about these problems. I was dealing with the site formed by the gardens of a number of houses. Through bombing the gardens had gone entirely out of use, and the site had been quite wrongfully used for other purposes. The tenants themselves could not develop the gardens because there was no fencing round the site. One tenant wrote to me and said how dangerous it was because huge holes were being dug and children were lighting fires on the site and things like that were going on.
I wrote to the City Surveyor who replied that his department, acting on behalf of the Ministry of Health, had cleared up much of the bomb damaged property in the City and the cost of so doing was reimbursed to the City by the Treasury through the Ministry of Health. However, the Ministry of Health would not permit fencing unless it was on the grounds of public safety, and for that reason most of the cleared sites throughout the city were left unprotected. In my judgment the landlord of the site to which I have referred ought to have erected fencing. There was no reason why he should not do so.
This is the first Amendment today upon which hon. Members opposite, who have been so careful to protect the interest of property owners, have not said one word.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Wait a moment.

Mr. Yates: If it had been a question of the protection of private property, they would all have been jumping up at once to try to get in.
This is a matter to which the Minister ought to give more consideration. While we have done very much in Birmingham, many of these sites are in the centre of the city, which was an unhealthy area during the bombing, and the people have, therefore, suffered considerably. I do not see why we should be so tender to landlords who have lost all sense of responsibility towards their property. The Minister should again consider whether some powers should be conferred to enable local authorities to recover part of the cost. I do not see why this should be as expensive as was suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), as my hon. Friend the Member for Acton said that there could be cheaper fencing.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I thought it a pity to intervene earlier in the domestic disputation opposite in which hon. Members are torn between their desire to injure property owners on the one hand, and their desire to assist local authorities on the other. I have broad sympathy with the view put by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton). The Committee should be grateful to him for raising a point of so much importance. His arguments were mostly sound. On the other hand, some of his detailed suggestions could not be supported whatever one's political views happened to be. For instance, as there is to be a 15 per cent. charge for the erection of fencing, it seems to me that the owner should have some say in what sort of fence is to be erected.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to be so wedded—I do not know whether one can be wedded to a chain fence; it sounds a mixed metaphor—he seemed to indicate that the only fence suitable for the purpose would be a chain


fence. He was completely answered by his hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), although I do not share the hon. Gentleman's optimism, as I indicated earlier on another Amendment, that this is a temporary affair. I believe that this five and 10 year time limit will be re-enacted in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill under a future Government.
I feel, with the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish), that the Minister brushed this aside a little easily. He seemed anxious to smooth the Committee after our experience with his right hon. Friend a little earlier. The earthquake having departed, a still, small voice followed. A good thing too; it was soothing and calming. None the less, I think he might have given more attention to the views of hon. Members who sit behind him.
I want to make a suggestion. I could not vote for the Amendment in its present form for reasons which have been stressed by the Parliamentary 'Secretary and also by the hon. Member for Acton, but this is a matter which should be looked at further before the Bill passes. The hon. and gallant Gentleman might find that the skilled and learned Law Officers, whose assistance is always readily forthcoming in these matters, could devise a form of words which would broadly meet the point he has in mind. I do not know whether there will be a Report stage today. There will have to be a Report stage because Government Amendments are on the Paper and the Bill will be amended in Committee. Our position is therefore safeguarded to the extent that there is bound to be a Report stage. Or are the Government anxious to push this Measure through all its stages this afternoon? If they are, we shall not have an opportunity further to consider the matter. The hon. and gallant Gentleman might get unity on both sides of the Committee if he had another look at this difficult problem.
If there could be an Amendment on the Report stage which would give local authorities a little easement—this is a very heavy burden for many of them—which would at the same time allow owners to be consulted about the form of fencing to be erected and which would

also, while we are about it, give retrospective relief to the public-spirited owners who have already done the work and paid 100 per cent. of the cost, it would surely commend itself to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Let us be fair to all. Let sweet unity prevail now that the Minister has gone to lunch. Let the Parliamentary Secretary say that he will examine the matter again, and let the Report stage be taken, say, this day week when the necessary Amendment can be considered.

Mr. Gibson: I should like to put a question to the Minister. I do not feel that the Amendment, as drafted, could be operated. In many cases local authorities would find they were dealing with a man of straw from whom they could not claim and from whom they could get nothing. The Clause provides for certain compensation to owners when the site is handed back. I assume—perhaps the Minister will put me right on this—that in the calculations as to the amount of compensation to which an owner might be entitled, the expenditure incurred by the local authority in making the sites pleasanter or more useful for the people living around them will be taken into account. Surely the question of fencing in order to keep dumpers off those sites and to prevent people from misusing them will be a factor in the cost which the local authority will have to bear in mind when turning these horrible sites into something like decent amenites for the local people. Will the Minster tell me whether these expenses will be taken into account when the time comes to calculate the compensation which the owner can claim?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: We have had a useful discussion on this point though the Parliamentary Secretary has not dealt as fully as he might have done with the important issue raised by this Amendment. I suggest that he was rather side-tracking the issue when he said that it was inequitable to expect a small owner to pay. He admitted that there was unfair discrimination between the owner who will be helped under this Clause and those public spirited owners who have already fenced their sites and thus contributed to the amenities of the neighbourhood. His other point, that the expense does not arise in any one year, is no real answer be-


cause the cost will be even greater if the money has to be provided by loan. Nor is it an answer to suggest that heavier penalties on those who misuse the sites will be effective. It means additional police observation and prosecutions in the courts.
I willingly concede the argument that chain fencing is not the only or best means of dealing with all the sites, and I am sure that alternative cheap fencing could, with the consent of the owner, be put up where the circumstances warrant it. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) misconceived the position when he talked about a local authority not being in possession of these sites for more than ten years. The sites affected by this Clause are those which do not come into the occupation or ownership of the local authority but remain with the private owner.
I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) that this is a problem which will be with us not merely for two, three, five or 10 years, but that we must be prepared to face the possibility of some of these sites not being fully utilised for a number of years to come. In those circumstances, if my hon. Friend cannot accept the Amendment, I appeal to him to say that, in consultation with such other authorities as he might wish to consult, he will see what can be done to meet this point at a later stage of the Bill. If he would give some such undertaking, the views which have been expressed will be satisfied to that extent.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I appreciate the points raised, but these are all matters which were considered carefully before this stage of the Bill was reached. With regard to compensation, that will largely depend upon the long-term use to be made of the site by the owner. As I say, we have already given sympathetic consideration to this proposal, not necessarily in this form, but we feel that in practice it is not one which we should embark upon. The suggestion I put forward earlier was not lightly made, and was discussed with all the representative bodies.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether this aspect of the matter, namely, a contribution on the part of the owners towards the cost

of this fencing, was discussed with any of the local authorities or with any association of local authorities?

2.15 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I did not say that the proposal my hon. and gallant Friend has put forward was discussed with the local authorities, but it has had careful consideration by my right hon. Friend and I am afraid we cannot accept it.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that this matter received most careful consideration before we reached this stage of the Bill. I hope it did—but has no impact whatever been made on the hon. Gentleman's mind by the Debate which has taken place today in this sovereign body of the House of Commons? Here we are on the Committee stage, and the most eloquent, moving appeals have been made to the Parliamentary Secretary from hon. Members behind him and by hon. Members opposite. Are they to be told merely that this is a matter which was considered beforehand, that the Minister has gone to lunch, and that the Parliamentary Secretary has received instructions to resist every Amendment which comes up until his return? It is unfortunate if that is so.
I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman had come here without his mind entirely closed to what the House of Commons might feel on the matter. The House of Commons still exists. The House of Commons still has its opportunities of putting forward suggestions. I was hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary would say that in the light of the speeches made this morning, particularly those of hon. Members behind him, he would look at this between now and the Report stage. He has considered it already, we know, but will he not reconsider it between now and then?

Mr. Mellish: I intervene again only because I do not think the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) ought to assume any unfairness on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary. The Amendment was put down on the Order Paper on Tuesday; there were discussions between those of us who support it and the Parliamentary Secretary, and we know some of the difficulties he has encountered. So we are quite certain that this Amendment was given consideration and I would not


like hon. Members opposite to think that it had been completely ignored.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10.—(MODIFICATION OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT. 1947.)

Mr. Berry: I beg to move, in page 7, line 28, at the end, to insert:
(4) No development charge shall be payable under Part VII of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, in respect of the laying out of cultivation of gardens on any land subject to a lease or authorisation under this Act in accordance with any such permission to develop land as is referred to in subsection (1) of this section.
May I ask, Mr. Bowles, with a view to expedition whether you would be prepared to take this and the next Amendment together, namely, in line 28, at end, insert:
(4) For the purposes of Section thirty-five of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, where in the exercise of the powers conferred on a local authority by Section four of this Act any development is carried out by that authority on any land to the possession of which they are entitled by virtue of an authorisation under this Act that development shall be deemed to be authorised by the Minister.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): Yes if that is agreeable to hon. Members.

Mr. Berry: I am much obliged, Mr. Bowles.
The ordinary provisions of the Town and Country Planning law will apply to the operations carried out on, and the uses made of, any war damaged sites possession of which is taken by a local authority under the Bill. Circumstances may arise, therefore, in which a local authority may be required to pay a development charge in respect of the action it takes to clean up or improve a site. The amount of such charges is not likely in any particular case to be great, having regard to the amenity nature of the authority's interest in the site, and in the case where it has taken possession compulsorily, to the insecurity of its tenure.
The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that a local authority will not be required to pay a development charge where it proposes to improve a

war damaged site by the laying out and cultivation of gardens. It is considered that it would be inequitable in such a case to levy a charge since the local authority will not benefit financially from the operations it carries out. Further, there is the temporary nature of the occupation. The development charge really was placed on the Statute Book with a view to long-standing occupation and benefit.
With regard to the second Amendment, under Section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, when a Government Department authorises a local authority to acquire land compulsorily for any purpose, that Department may, at the same time as it grants the authorisation, direct that planning permission is deemed to be granted for the development of the land for the purpose of which its acquisition is authorised. The making of such a direction avoids approach by the acquiring authority both to the Department authorising the acquisition and to the local planning authority and the Minister of Town and Country Planning before it can commence the development.

Air-Commodore Harvey: On a point of Order, Mr. Bowles. Could the hon. Gentleman read a little more slowly? It is difficult to follow what is going on.

Mr. Berry: It is unusual to have complaints that speeches cannot be heard and I recommend the hon. and gallant Member to take advantage of the National Health Service. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read a little slower."]
The object of the Amendment is to apply this procedure to cases where, under the Bill, local authorities are authorised by the Minister to take possession of war damaged sites to carry out works of improvement, securing that the sites are not in conditions detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood. The Amendment is designed, first, to safeguard a local authority against a development charge and, secondly, to secure that the passage for the local authority in getting on with the work may be much speedier that would otherwise be the case.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The first of the two Amendments would conflict with the general principle regarding arrangements


for payment of development charges in connection with local authority development. In point of fact we do not believe that, in actual practice, charges are likely to arise in cases of this sort. We have investigated and had some discussion on this matter and are satisfied that in practice this problem should not arise. Neither are we sure that the provision contained in the second Amendment is necessary, but we are prepared to reexamine the matter to make quite sure of this. If necessary, an Amendment will be put down at a later stage.

Mr. Berry: In view of the assurances of my hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11.—(WAR DAMAGE PAYMENTS.)

Colonel Dower: I beg to move, in page 8, line 5, to leave out from "that," to the end of line 6, and to insert:
it is not the intention of those owners to carry out such works.
This is a rather technical Amendment and relates to the question of cost of works and value payments. Under the Bill as it stands the War Damage Commission are to be given power, where it appears to them that the licence and other requirements would be granted for the rebuilding of the area, but that, after consultation with the owners, the work will not be carried out within reasonable time, to convert the cost of works payment into a value payment.
That might on the face of it seem quite reasonable, but I would like to take the Committee back to the War Damage Act, where it will be found that whenever a cost of works payment is converted into a value payment it is done after agreement with, and at the wish of, the sufferer from war damage. But under the Bill, as I read it, and without the Amendment, the War Damage Commission will be able to enforce a conversion for a cost of works payment to a value payment.
It does not require me to remind the Committee that in a conversion of a cost of works payment to a value payment a very considerable loss may be entailed. A cost of works payment means that one is entitled to reinstate property into its

condition before it was damaged by enemy action. A value payment, on the other hand, has been fixed at a 1939 value with certain additions, a procedure which the House has approved during the present Parliament.
The first thing I do not like about the provisions in the Bill is that the value payment can be enforced. My second point—the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have both stressed the undesirability of holding up work, but our proposal cities not do that in any way—is purely a question of whether the payment is to be a cost of works or a value payment. It is rather unreasonable that all that the War Damage Commission should have to do is to have a consultation with the owners and come to the conclusion that the work will not be carried out within a reasonable time.
Under the Amendment, the Commission would have to come to the conclusion that it was not the intention of the owners to repair the property; otherwise, where an owner says that he does not intend to repair the property, he gets a value payment. The cost of works basis has been put upon bomb-damaged property on the ground that its owner might one day hope to be able to repair it. Acceptance of the Amendment will ensure that the War Damage Commission must make certain that it is the intention of the owner not to wish to repair his property, and not merely to come to the conclusion that the work will not be able to be done within a reasonable time.
This proposal does not impede or delay the workings of the Bill in any way and does no harm whatever to any of its provisions. We have argued reasonably, and sometimes a little heat has been engendered, but that does no harm. After all, we are opposing forces and the public like us to fight, as long as we fight above the belt. But the Parliamentary Secretary, as far as I know, has not given way on a single Amendment.

Mr. W. R. Williams: That shows how tough he is.

Colonel Dower: He may be tough, but he is not reasonable.

Mr. Sparks: He has been reasonable.

Colonel Dower: If he has been told by the Minister, who really is having a very big lunch—he has been away a very


long time—to oppose and not to accept any of the Amendments, I hope that he will send one of his friends to ask the Minister whether on this occasion he can show some kind of amenability.

Mr. Blenkinsop: In spite of the very encouraging words of the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cocker-mouth (Colonel Dower) I fear that we cannot accept the Amendment, for to do so would be asking the War Damage Commission to carry out a job which I do not think they could be asked to undertake. For example, the Commission would have to be satisfied that the persons interested would never reinstate their property to its former condition. It seems to me quite impossible for them to arrive at that conclusion. Obviously, the circumstances of the people concerned might change in course of time. To make the Clause at all workable the Commission must be allowed to look at the present circumstances and to judge what those concerned intend to do within a period that can reasonably be foreseen. It is for that reason—a reason I hope which will appeal to hon. Members opposite—that we cannot agree to the Amendment. I am sure they would be the first to accept that we cannot ask the War Damage Commission to attempt to act in a way which would be impossible. We cannot ask them to judge when it is quite impossible for them to judge. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not press the Amendment.

2.30 p.m.

Sir J. Mellor: I confess I cannot understand the reasons for the Parliamentary Secretary resisting this Amendment. He says it would not be possible for the War Damage Commission to ascertain what is asked for—that it is the intention of the owners to carry out the work. I should think it very much easier for the War Damage Commission to ascertain whether it is the intention of the owners to carry out the work than to form an opinion whether the works will be carried out within a reasonable time. The question of the intention of the owners is a question of fact.
I hope the hon. Gentleman has obtained some assistance from the Attorney-General on this point. What is the intention of the owners is an ascertainable

fact which can be clearly expressed. Whether the works will, or will not, be carried out within a reasonable time is a much more uncertain matter. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will have another try to explain why this Amendment should not be accepted. So far his arguments seem very much to strengthen the case put by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. Walker-Smith: As far as the manner of his reply was concerned, the Parliamentary Secretary was much more disarming than his right hon. Friend and to that extent he has proved himself a much more effective debater, at least in the limited circumstances with which we are dealing today.
This Amendment deals with a simple, but important, point. It is not clear at first flush why the Clause is in the Bill at all and why this special provision for converted value payments in these circumstances falls to be dealt with under the War Damaged Sites Bill at all. Since it is being dealt with it is right that the Committee should see that the Bill provides a reasonable solution to the case with which it deals. Under the Clause as drafted the owners, willynilly, after consultation, though not necessarily after expressing agreement, have to accept converted value payment if the works will not be carried out within a reasonable time.
What was clear on the Second Reading Debate perhaps to all other than to the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest), although I think he is clear about it now, was that in many cases the time within which such works could be carried out was not within the option of the owners of the property and that there might be all sorts of considerations whereby they would be prevented from giving effect to their intentions. All the Amendment seeks to do is to make the criterion of whether or not the owners shall be forced to accept a converted value payment instead of a cost of works examination the question of their intention. That seems reasonable. Here we are only dealing with questions of war damage compensation and none of the considerations introduced in arguments on previous Amendments is germane to this matter.
So far from being less easy to ascertain than the requirement in the Bill, this is


more easy to ascertain. What the Amendment seeks to do is, first, to provide a right and, secondly, to make the provision whereby it seeks to do it more practicable and easier than that at present in the Bill. In those circumstances, it would seem that if, as I hope, the Parliamentary Secretary has been given a discretion in this matter, it is because there is some reason to hope that he would exercise his discretion rather more objectively than his right hon. Friend. I reinforce the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) that he should think again on this question.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill

Colonel Dower: I think the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary is unfair. The Amendment does not affect the working of the Bill but, without it, many small owners will be forced to accept value payments instead of cost-of-works payments and I do not propose to withdraw the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 109; Noes, 36.

Division No. 288.]
AYES
[2.38 p.m.


Albu, A. H.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Ranger, J.


Austin, H. Lewis
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Ayles, W. H.
Herbison, Miss M.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Holman, P.
Robens, A.


Barton, C.
Houghton, Douglas
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Berry, H.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Beswick, F.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Royle, C.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Scott-Elliot, W.


Binns, J.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Blenkinsop, A.
Janner, B.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Bowden, H. W.
Jenkins, R. H.
Skinnard, F. W.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Jones, Rt. Hon A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Bramall, E. A.
Leslie, J. R.
Solley, L. J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Longden, F.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
McAdam, W.
Sparks, J. A.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
McEntee, V. La. T.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


Chater, D.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Symonds, A. L.


Coldrick, W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cove, W. G
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Daines, P.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mellish, R. J.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mitchison, G. R.
Warbey, W. N.


Delargy, H. J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Dodds, N. N.
Morley, R.
Weitzman, D.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Moyle, A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Nally, W.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Edelman, M.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Field, Capt. W. J.
Oliver, G. H.
Yates, V. F.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Orbach, M.
Zilliacus, K.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Pargiter, G. A.



Gibson, C. W.
Parker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Parkin, B. T.
Mr. Richard Adams and


Gunter, R. J.
Pearson, A.
Mr. George Wallace.


Guy, W. H.
Pursey, Comdr. H.





NOES


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Renton, D.


Bower, N.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
MacAndrew, Col Sir C.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Carson, E.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Teeling, William


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Wakefield, Sir W. W


Fox, Sir G.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Walker-Smith, D.


Gage, C.
Mellor, Sir J.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Mr. Studholme and


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Colonel Wheatley.

Clause 12.—(DISPOSAL OF RUBBLE, ETC.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

2.45 p.m.

Sir J. Mellor: I wish to ask a question about subsection (2), which provides:
Where any materials (not being materials severed from the land by the local authority) are removed as aforesaid, the local authority shall account to the owner in respect of the value of the materials after deducting the cost of the removal and disposal.
Why is the distinction drawn between materials severed from the land and other materials? I cannot see why that distinction should be drawn, and I should be glad if the Minister would explain that point. Secondly, I wish to inquire why the owners should receive only the value of the materials after the deduction of the cost of removal and disposal. The owner has not asked that these materials be taken away from the land and disposed of. Surely his measure of compensation should be their value and not their value subject to deductions? I should be glad of an explanation by the Minister.

Colonel Dower: I should like to know why, when in every single Clause in which an individual is required to do anything it has to be "reasonable," this subsection should not be worded:
after deducting the reasonable cost …
and not merely:
after deducting the cost of the removal and disposal.
That removal and disposal might be done in the most extravagant way, and as the Clause at present stands the owner would have no redress.

Mr. Bevan: I should have thought the first part of the Clause to be perfectly reasonable and self-explanatory. It says:
Any materials removed from land by a local authority in the exercise of the powers conferred by section four or section nine of this Act may be dealt with or disposed of in such manner as the local authority think fit.
There is no difficulty about that. They have to take the rubble off the land and the owner who has an interest in the site would have no interest whatever in the rubble. But:
Where any materials … are removed as aforesaid, the local authority shall account to the owner in respect of the value of the materials after deducting the cost of the removal and disposal.

In other words, there may be material other than rubble removed in the process of removing rubble.

Sir J. Mellor: The Minister has not explained the distinction between materials severed from the land and other materials. Why are there in the Clause, in brackets, the words:
(not being materials severed from the land by the local authority)"?
Why is the distinction drawn between materials severed and materials that are not severed?

Mr. Bevan: I should have thought that an obvious explanation is that in many cases there will be demolition work. In other words there may be just part of a derelict building on the land which would be fixed on the land and which would be removed. Part of the property might adjoin a piece of neighbouring property and would have to be removed from the land as part of the clearance, which might be said to be doing some damage for which compensation should be payable to the owner.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not know if the matter is clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor).

Sir J. Mellor: indicated dissent.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am glad that my hon. Friend shakes his head to indicate that it is not, because if I have failed to comprehend it is possible on this occasion that it is not necessarily due to slowness in comprehension on my part; at least I err in good company. If my hon. Friend does not understand the explanation I need not apologise for not having understood it either.
In the illustration which the Minister rather rapidly gave, did he intend to distinguish between the two categories of cases to which I understood him to refer, and which of either of these two categories does he suggest is covered by the words within the brackets? It is not clear to me because his explanation appeared to relate to two different categories of case, both of which would fall within the terms of "material severed from the land" because they are materials which are part of a partially demolished structure and are therefore part of the land because the structure is


affixed thereto. Would the Minister answer that point and, if he can, give a clearer answer to the point, very important to the understanding of this Clause, which was originally put by my hon. Friend?

Mr. Bevan: This has been made clear on several occasions. Where the cost is a cost that the owner of the land can recover from the War Damage Commission that part of the cost will be recovered by the local authority from the War Damage Commission, because in fact it would have carried out work which would in any case have fallen to be carried out by the owner of the land. It may however be necessary for the local authority to go beyond that, and to take from the land something quite unnecessary for the owner to take in carrying out his work, but which the local authority might themselves find necessary to do in order to carry out their work. For that particular work the owner would be able to claim compensation from the local authority, because the owner would not in any case have been able to claim it from the War Damage Commission.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 13 to 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16.—(FINANCIAL PROVISIONS.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 10, line 25, at the end, to insert:
(2) Any expenses incurred under this Act by the Common Council of the City of London shall be defrayed out of the general rate authorised to be levied by the Council.
This Amendment is needed because the Common Council of the City of London have no general powers of charging to their rate expenses of carrying out statutory functions.

Mr. Guy: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Chairman? May I raise any matter dealing with the inadequacy of the financial provisions for a local borough rate?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): No.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17.—(SHORT TITLE.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 10, line 27, at the end, to insert:
(2) This Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland.

Sir Ronald Ross: This is a matter of considerable importance in Northern Ireland. It is of much more importance than is generally recognised, because the decision that was taken by the local people of Northern Ireland to stand by the United Kingdom in the war with every means at their disposal was answered by savage attacks by the German Air Force. The number of killed in Belfast, for instance, I believe exceeds the number of killed either in Southampton or Portsmouth. At the same time, I think this is one of the things which lies within the competence of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and that they are the best possible people to deal with it. I do not often find myself in complete agreement with the Minister, but in this case I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(PURPOSES FOR WHICH MONEY MAY BE BORROWED.)

A local authority may, with the consent of the Minister, borrow such sums as may be required for the purposes of this Act:

Provided that money so borrowed shall be repaid within a period of seven years.—[Captain Field.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Captain Field: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this new Clause is to avoid heavy and immediate expenditure falling upon the revenue of local authorities. On Second Reading, and indeed this afternoon, many hon. Members pointed out the very heavy expenditure which will fall upon the revenues of local authorities by virtue of the work which they will have to do under this Bill such as fencing and laying out bombed sites as gardens. Even if, as was suggested, voluntary effort is brought into play—as I think it should be—the local authorities will be called upon to expend a great deal of money in the initial outlay in preparing these sites for the voluntary associations to take over.
Under the London Government Act, 1939, and the Local Authority Government Act, 1933, there is power to borrow moneys to clear land and this may be regarded as capital expenditure. Under Clauses 4 and 9 of this Bill the local authority may remove refuse from land without taking a lease or obtaining authorisation from the Minister, and thereby they will be incurring considerable expense. If the view is taken that this expenditure is not capital expenditure, then I think this Clause is necessary to enable local authorities to borrow moneys to carry out the provision of this Act without unduly burdening themselves in any one period.
I do not know whether it is in Order to do so, but I should like to point out that expenditure falling under this head would not be so great if local authorities had greater powers of deterrent, to prevent people from dumping rubbish on these sites. The present penalty is only £2 and the necessity for borrowing would be lessened if the penalty were very much greater. Perhaps the Minister could look into that point also.

Mr. Bevan: I am satisfied that I have enough power at the moment under the Act of 1933 to authorise local authorities to borrow on short term for the purposes of this Bill when it becomes an Act. However, I will certainly make quite sure that that is the case. If it is not, we can take the power at a later stage. With regard to the last part of what was said by my hon. Friend, I am hoping at some later stage to take additional powers of deterrence.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I am glad to hear the Minister make that answer, because I was not at all clear whether the powers already existed in the previous Act. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is seized of this aspect of this problem. The hon. and gallant Member for North Paddington (Captain Field) represents a constituency which will be involved in heavy expenditure, as will other authorities in various parts of the country. What the Committee has to consider is what financial procedure is likely to get this repair work expedited. I think we must all be satisfied that unless local authorities are enabled to borrow considerable sums on short term, that work will not proceed

with expedition. That is my approach to the matter, and I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that if these powers do not exist he will put them in on the Report stage.

Captain Field: On receiving those very satisfactory assurances from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported with Amendments; as amended, considered.

Mr. Walker-Smith: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I ask whether the two Manuscript Amendments which I handed in as Amendments to be considered on Report stage are selected, or either of them?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Mr. Speaker has not seen his way to select either of the Amendments of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not want in any way to press that point, but you will appreciate, Sir, that those Amendments though in form they are manuscript Amendments—and here I express my regret—are, of course, Amendments—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He will appreciate that Mr. Speaker has given his decision which is not subject to discussion. It is not within my power, even if I thought it desirable, to make any alteration in that decision. Therefore, the matter cannot be further discussed.

Mr. Walker-Smith: In that case may I say that no doubt I shall have the opportunity—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of Order.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? I have referred to Standing Order No. 47 where I find it laid down that:
… when amendments shall have been made thereto …
That is to a Bill—
… a day shall be appointed for the taking of the bill as amended into consideration, unless the House shall order it to be taken into consideration forthwith.


As I understand the matter, no day has been named and the House has not resolved that the Bill shall be taken into consideration forthwith. In those circumstances, I submit with great deference that it is out of Order to take the Report stage.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: When I put the Question, the Whip said "Now." It was so decided and hence the Third Reading must be taken now.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: May I have your ruling on this matter because it is of some importance. Does the mere ipse dixit of the Whip sitting on the Treasury Bench saying "Now" constitute a Resolution of the House which would override any objection—and so far, of course, there has been no objection put forward—to the Report stage being taken forthwith?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The practice of the House is to act as I have indicated. The Third Reading must take place now.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Further to that point of Order. Surely on any interpretation of Standing Order No. 47, the Chair would collect the voices as to whether or not the House wished the Report stage to be taken today. It is specifically stated to be an exceptional proceeding. In this case, the voices were not collected and may I respectfully suggest that they ought to be?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The practice is a perfectly usual and proper one. In fact, no objection was taken, though I must not be understood as indicating that if any objection were taken it would be in any way effective.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Hon. Members cannot discuss that question any further. Unless there is any further point of Order, I must put the Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. Walker-Smith: Before that Question is put, would you inform the House whether, if there is objection, account will be taken of it, because hon. Members on this side would wish to take exception to the nomination of today in that way? If the voices are to be collected they would wish to register their objection.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No objection can be taken in those circumstances.
3.3 p.m.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. Walker-Smith: I sincerely hope that we shall not part with this interesting Measure without some discussion upon it, the more so as the Ruling which you have just given, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, unfortunately leaves certain matters undiscussed which otherwise would have been discussed upon Report stage. The principle of this Bill was discussed on Second Reading and my hon. Friends and myself abide by what we said on that occasion—that is to say, that the principle of the Bill in itself is good though the Bill cannot be considered to more than a minor Measure. It is a minor Measure in the sense that it is necessarily only a patching up Bill which would not have been necessary at all if greater and more satisfactory progress had been made with the basic requirement of getting on with desirable redevelopment at the quickest possible pace. It is only because there has been so significant a failure in that regard that the House is called upon to put this Bill upon the Statute Book.
We on this side of the House recognise that in the position at which we have arrived after 4½ years of Socialism—a position of retarded development and of cuts in capital investment programmes—it is necessary to put patching up temporary Measures such as this upon the Statute Book. We are forced, of course, to regard this Measure within the framework of existing circumstances and conditions, however unsatisfactory and regrettable they may be, and they are both unsatisfactory and regrettable. Within that limited framework, we agree that the purpose of this Bill is good, and we have never deviated from that. It is for that reason that I pointed out how unwise and unreasonable it was of the Minister to try to impute to us a point of view which in fact we have never either expressed or entertained.
If we agree in principle with the desirability of giving local authorities power to deal with war damaged sites where there is a detriment to amenity, we have not in every case considered that the procedure laid down in this Bill is the best calculated to achieving that purpose in the public interest. It would be a strange doctrine if it were thought that


any criticism of the machinery of a Measure implied a criticism or derogation of the underlying purpose of that Measure, and, of course, all the Amendments which we put forward and all the efforts that we have made to improve this Bill have been directed towards making it a more satisfactory and efficient instrument for carrying out this beneficent purpose, which has been rendered necessary by the failure of the Government to go ahead with full-scale development. [Laughter.]
I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should laugh at that, unless he thinks that the failure of the Government is funny, and it is not funny, but lamentable; or that he considers that the present state of these war damaged sites is funny, and it is not funny, but highly regrettable; or it is because he regards Debates in this House as funny, and they are not funny, but part of the machinery of democratic government. If, on the other hand, the hon. Gentleman has some particular, peculiar and personal cause for mirth in what I have to say, perhaps he will have the ordinary courtesy to explain it if he is fortunate enough to catch the eye of Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Ronald Williams: With great respect, the hon. Member must permit me to show my sense of mirth if I find his arguments so thoroughly ludicrous.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The House will recall that, in the pages of "Pickwick Papers," how Mr. Pickwick finds himself commenting on the ease with which the friends of Mr. Peter Magnus were apparently amused. For this purpose, I put the hon. Member in the category of the friends of Mr. Peter Magnus, but, in every other aspect of the activities of the hon. Member, there are other characters in "Pickwick Papers" with whom he is more suitably compared, and, indeed, if it were in Order to press these literary comparisons wider—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I think the hon. Gentleman has had as was said "a good run," and that he must now apply his mind to the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am obliged to you for that Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Of course, the House will appreciate that the last few observations that I have made were no part of the speech which I intended to address to hon. Members but were provoked solely by the intervention of the hon. Gentleman opposite. Though, as you know, Sir, I am always anxious to save the time of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—always anxious to save the time of the House—I cannot guarantee that if I am interrupted I shall not reply to any interruption which you, Sir, find to be in Order. After all, I am, perhaps, like the wicked animal in the French proverb, and when I am attacked I defend myself.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There are other occasions on which we shall all be interested in the hon. Gentleman's literary recollections. On this occasion I must ask him at once to revert to the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Before I was interrupted by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) I was dealing in broad outline with the position of this Bill and the attitude of the Opposition to it. Having explained the broad outline of what our position is, I think that, with your permission, Sir, I will come to certain specific points in which the Bill is still unsatisfactory. I cannot, of course, at this stage propose any addition to the Bill by way of improvement, and if, therefore, I am thought to be in any respect less constructive than I habitually am, hon. Members will appreciate that it is solely because I am bound by the Rules of Order of the House, and that had I been able at an earlier stage to move the Amendments I had designed to do I should have been able to be a little more constructive.
Now, the points I am about to make are, I am afraid, a little technical, and for that I express regret but it is regret tempered by this consideration, that, after all, this is a technical subject and these are technical matters. [Interruption.] I do not know really whether the hon. Member wants to interrupt—

Mr. Gibson: No.

Mr. Walker-Smith: It is very difficult when hon. Members opposite are muttering and mumbling in their seats—

Miss Jennie Lee: Get on with the speech.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Lady has been here long enough to know that she is out of Order to speak when sitting down in the House. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary is now falling into the same elementary error. I do ask for your Ruling on this point, Sir, whether or not it is in Order for hon. Members opposite to make interruptions from a sedentary position.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to address his remarks to the Chair I am sure it will be a much better way of dealing with the matter and we shall get on.

Mr. Walker-Smith: With respect, I am so addressing my remarks, but I am consistently sniped from the flank by these irrelevant and sedentary interruptions. I have, by way of preface pointed out to the House that the points I was now about to make were, unfortunately, a little technical. It is a little difficult to make technical points unless one has, at any rate, some measure of freedom from interruption from hon. Members opposite. After all, if they are not interested in this Bill they can always quit the Chamber and leave it to others who are.
The first of those points to which I wish to refer is on Clause 5. Clause 5 (2, a) says that:
the term of that lease"—
that is, the lease for the purposes of compensation—
shall be treated as a term not exceeding the period for which the local authority are authorised to take or retain possession of the land under this Act.…
On the face of it, it is very reasonable to fix the length of the lease for compensation purposes at the length of the period of requisition, but in fact the position is this. The length of time for which rental compensation will be paid must be the same as the length of the occupation. From that, of course, there could be no dissenting view, and I should not like any hon. Member to think I meant that that should not be a necessary consequence of the taking of the possession of the land. But the term fixed for the lease not only affects the length of time for which compensation is paid, but also has an effect on the quality and amount of the compensation paid, because the length of the lease also must

determine the type of hypothetical lease which is taken for the purpose of compensation.
Now, under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, which is the statute governing the compensation for requisition in general, the view has been formally taken that the length of the lease must be conditioned by the probable period of requisition, and the effect of that in certain cases was that, where ripe land—that is to say land ripe for building development—was requisitioned compensation was not paid on the basis of ripe building land, but was paid simply on the basis of allotment or grazing land because the argument ran thus; the period of requisition is a short period, and one cannot contemplate a building lease as a short one, because in practice it is uneconomic to take a building lease of less than 75 to 99 years.
Therefore, it was always argued by Government Departments and those who act on their behalf that compensation, even in those cases, had to be restricted to the sort of lease which could take effect within a short period, such as five or ten years As a result of a decision taken by the General Claims Tribunal last summer, this hypothesis on which Government Departments have been working for some time has, I think, been decided to be irrelevant, and I trust that it is now discontinued in the minds of valuers in Government Departments. That, by way of prelude and explanation, is the broad general background of the requisitioning position in regard to the effect of the length of lease to be taken on compensation.
Under this Bill it is sought to restore, for the admittedly limited purposes of this Bill—and they are very limited compared with the broad general position with which I have hitherto been dealing—the position as it was previously understood by the valuers of Government Departments. Therefore, it is in terms enacted that
the term of the lease shall be treated as a term not exceeding the period for which the local authority are authorised to take or retain possession of the land";
that is to say, for a period of five to ten years at most. The effect of that is not only to confine the period of the payment of compensation to that short period, which is quite right and unargu


able, but also to confine the type of lease to the sort of lease for grazing land and to exclude the long-term building lease.
There may not be many cases under this Bill in which a building lease would be the appropriate form of lease, but so long as there are any such cases it is right that they should be catered for. I should not be in Order if I went on to say what should be put into the Bill to meet that position in this limited number of cases, which are none the less worthy of being dealt with. Therefore, I cannot go on—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am going on to some other points. As I was saying, I cannot go on, as I would naturally wish, to put forward constructive proposals in that regard. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) says "Hear, hear." He really ought not to taunt us with not being constructive in our contributions.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: It is because the hon. Member is always constructive that I was regretting he is unable to be so now.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I express my regret for having misunderstood the purpose of the hon. and learned Member's interruption. I am glad that he recognises I do try to be constructive in my contributions.
Owing to the limitations imposed on me by the Rules of Order, I shall have to pass to another point, which is also, I am afraid, of a technical character, and that is in regard to Clause 7 Here, again, I express regret if the point I am about to make is a little technical, but these matters are technical, and if one is to make any contribution of value at this stage, it is necessary to go into the technicalities of the subject. Clause 7 deals with the determination of possession for the purpose of development by the owner. May I say, right away, that I have nothing but respect for the purposes and the general principle of this Clause? It is a good Clause in its purposes, and I do not want anything I say to be considered as a criticism of the underlying purpose of the Clause, which is to allow the Minister to determine the period of requisitioning when he is satisfied that the owners are going to carry out development.
There is one rather interesting point arising from this Clause, to which I ventured to make some reference on Second Reading, and which, I hope, was a helpful and constructive, if somewhat technical, point. It got me into some disagreement with the right hon. Gentleman, who did not altogether share my interpretation of the difficulties to which this Clause will expose the owner in making application to the Minister. Looking at the Clause, it will be seen that the Minister, in order to take the action prescribed thereunder, must be satisfied of three things. The first is that the person interested in the land desires to develop the whole or any part of it, the second being that he has got the planning permission under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act in respect of that development, and the third, which is the important one, that the said person will, upon obtaining possession of the land, proceed without delay to execute any works necessary for the purposes of that development. The effect of that is that the owner cannot get his land released from requisition.

Air-Commodore Harvey: On a point of Order. Nobody on the other side of the House appears to have been listening to this Debate, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with the exception of the Home Secretary, who has now left the Chamber together with the Minister of Health. Should we not make much better progress if the Front Bench opposite were listening to what my hon. Friend is saying?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of Order, nor is it any part of my duty to ensure that any hon. Member takes an interest in the proceedings.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey). I am addressing my remarks to yourself, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and, through you, to those hon. Members of the House whose minds are sufficiently receptive and informed to be anxious to follow the argument that I am presenting. I am quite content with that position. If the majority of those Members happen to be those who sit on this side of the House, that is not a matter for me either to comment upon or to complain about.

Mr. Royle: Is it not the case that if the hon. Member could see


the look of boredom on the faces of his hon. Friends he would cease what he is saying?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member must be a little careful. It may be, as he implies, that some of the countenances of my hon. Friends bear a somewhat strained expression, but that is a de facto observation. He must not go on from that to infer that that expression necessarily means that my hon. Friends are in any way bored with the argument that I am presenting. On the contrary, I suggest to him, through you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the right interpretation is that their faces are perhaps showing the close attention to what, I freely admit, is a complex and difficult subject.

Mr. Beswick: Is it not more correct to say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the strained expression on the faces of hon. Gentlemen opposite reflects their personal animosity to certain types of people who are connected with a Bill, the discussion of which—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) will now confine his remarks strictly to the contents of the Bill and will not be diverted.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I will at once accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but it will be within your recollection that I have at no stage diverted from the Bill, except to deal with points that have been put to me. Being put to me, those points must have been in Order because you have allowed them to be put. If those points were in Order it was not only my right but my duty to deal with them. If no more points are put, I can give an unqualified guarantee that I shall pursue my argument very closely, in relation to what I have to say on the particular Clauses of the Bill.
I was putting before the House what is, unfortunately, a rather technical point. I am concerned at the moment with the regulations which will come under Clause 7, which is the Clause whereby the Minister can determine the requisitioning of premises or sites, if he is satisfied on certain matters. Of the three matters, the last is that the person will, upon obtaining possession of the land in question, proceed without delay to execute works that are necessary for the purpose of the development. That means that the owner

can get his land released if he can convince the Minister that, in addition to having planning permission, he will proceed without delay.
This is where the matter becomes a little complicated. In order to proceed without delay, the owner must have got a determination of the development charge under the Town and Country Planning Act. It is illegal for him to embark on that development without such a determination under Section 69 of that Act, but in order to get that determination of the development charge under the Town and Country Planning Act he must have an interest in the land sufficient to carry out the development or to be able to convince the Central Land Board that he is in a position to obtain such an interest. For the convenience of the Attorney-General, that is Section 70 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act.
In the case contemplated by this clause where the land is under requisition, the owner can only convince the Board that he is able to, get an interest sufficient to enable him to carry out the development if he can show that he is going to regain possession of his requisitioned land, but he can only show that that is the case if he can satisfy the Minister that he will proceed without delay. But he cannot satisfy the Minister that he will proceed without delay until he has got his determination of development charge under the Town and Country Planning Act; and that is where we came in. These two Acts, read together, involve a complete boxing of the compass. They make a circle into which the owner is quite unable to break. If this provision is embodied in the Bill, as it will now be, unless the Minister sees fit to change it in another place, it will when read with the Town and Country Planning Act make a reductio ad absurdum.
I am glad to see the Attorney-General in his place because the Minister of Health was not altogether able to agree with this interpretation of the interrelationship of these two statutes on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I feel that, much as the House respects the views of the Minister of Health, he is not a lawyer, and I am sure that on Third Reading hon. Members would be glad to hear the view of the Attorney-General to see whether he agrees with the interpretation which I have now put forward or that put forward by his right hon.


Friend on Second Reading, and if he disagrees with my interpretation, why he does so.
Those are some of the points which are still unsatisfactory in regard to this Bill with whose principle, in the framework which I have previously described, we agree. I have felt it right to draw attention to them, but I should not like it to be thought that the Opposition are not anxious that a properly phrased Bill should be upon the Statute Book at an early date to deal with the difficulties of amenity which arise from war damaged sites which for one reason or another cannot be made the subject of normal long-term developments. Other hon. Members wish to take part, and, therefore, I shall say no more than that we shall not for that reason oppose the Third Reading although we have found points of criticism in it with which to deal. Finally, I would merely remind the Government in general and the right hon. Gentleman in particular that the only satisfactory and long-term solution to these problems of amenity and war damage is to get ahead with positive and desirable permanent development in the interests of the community as a whole.

3.35 p.m.

Colonel Dower: Because my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) has a considerable knowledge of the law and is prepared to give us the benefit of his opinion of this Bill, I do not see why other hon. Members should not be prepared to listen and gain thereby, but I can assure hon. Members that I intend to be brief, very much to the point, and perhaps not very polite.
This is a Bill in which it was quite unnecessary to engender hostility or heat and I am attacking the Minister for having done so. The right hon. Gentleman came down to this House today bombastically, with a thorough determination apparently not to accept one of our Amendments. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I know that you know all these Amendments by heart and I think you will agree that they were not wrecking Amendments. Fully half of them could have been brought within the Bill, and it would have been a better Bill because of them. Both sides of the House would have co-operated, the Minister would have got his Bill through, and the Busi-

ness of the day would have been dealt with.
What I do not like about the Bill is that the right hon. Gentleman has, as usual, produced a sledgehammer to crack a peanut—

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: A groundnut.

Colonel Dower: I do not know why it is we never seem to get away from groundnuts? Why does the Minister do that? He could have achieved the same result if he had paid consideration to our arguments. Why must he ride roughshod over us in order to obtain powers which are not necessary? Time after time in this Bill he has deliberately refused to accept the principle of coming to an agreement with the parties in question. First, he should have come to an agreement with them on taking over their leases. I am sure they would have been the first people to want him to do so.
When it comes to the actual working of this Bill, I still say to the right hon. Gentleman that, if he wants these sites cleared, it is no good leaving it to a bureaucracy. He should get the local inhabitants together, let them make up their work-parties. In that way not only would the sites be cleared much quicker, but much better gardens and amenities would be achieved.
There are three parts of this Bill to which I take strong exception. The first is where the Minister has gone out of his way to say, "We do not want co-operation." The second is where he says, "If necessary, we will seize what we want within 24 hours." The third is something which has nothing to do with the objects of the Bill except that it is in the Bill, namely he has gone right out of his way to deny reasonable compensation. Why the owners, who may be small people, who are having their sites taken should have their costs of work payment forced to be turned into a depreciated value payment I cannot understand.
Had the Minister dealt with the Bill properly there would have been hardly a voice raised in opposition. We would have given him every assistance, the Bill would have gone through quickly, and there would have been no question of a Debate of this nature. But the Minister says, "Oh, no, we must take a party line on this matter." I deeply regret that he


did so because, if he had done otherwise, we should all have left here happy in the feeling that we had put a Bill on the Statute Book which was useful and which would have resulted in the removal of rubble from these bombed sites. Not only that but we would have expunged unsightly scars not only from London, but from other cities.

3.40 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I, too, intend to be brief, but I should like to put one or two queries which, I should think, would be in the minds of most hon. Gentlemen opposite if they had the courage to express their views or to take any part in the Debate. It is always the trouble with large majorities that their enthusiasm and intelligence are crushed and their oratory suppressed—[Interruption.] Yes, that is so. I am taking it upon myself, therefore—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman kindly address his remarks to the Chair and to the Third Reading of the Bill?

Sir T. Moore: I was explaining to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, why I was taking part in the Debate; that I was trying to assume part of the burden which has been shirked by the supporters of the Government, in order to elucidate one or two explanations which have hitherto not been given in regard to the Bill.
As you know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and as the House realises, we are accustomed to Measures being rushed through this House without at the time any indication of when they will become effective. We have had the passing of the National Health Service Act before the clinics were built or the nurses available.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Deputy-Speaker indicated dissent.

Sir T. Moore: I notice you are shaking your head, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but one has to illustrate one's main arguments.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon and gallant Gentleman will forgive me, but what appears to be his main argument does not refer to the contents of the Bill and is out of Order.

Sir T. Moore: I am coming to the contents of the Bill, but I thought it would illustrate my point to the House better if I were to give a few examples

in order, so to speak, to rub in my points. I was also going to mention, before you interrupted me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker the question of the Criminal Justice Act.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is compelling me to interrupt him because he is not obeying the Orders of the House. I hope he will not refer to any of those other Measures. The simple question is, the contents of this Bill.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Is my hon. and gallant Friend out of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on Third Reading, in giving his views as to how the Measure is liable to operate when on the Statute Book and in giving examples of similar Measures?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think so, but that was not the burden of the argument of the hon. and gallant Member.

Sir T. Moore: I was coming to my argument. We all know that the remand centres have not been built, so I shall not dwell on that, and that the various hostels and so on to be built under the Criminal Justice Act cannot come into operation for years to come.
When is this Bill going to operate? We have been waiting now for five years. We have seen these great sinister aggravating gaps, destructive of all amenity, in our streets and countryside, and at last the Bill is introduced. But with our previous experience—that is why I had to use my illustrations—what indication or proof have we that the Bill will be put into operation before, say, even the 1951 Exhibition? That is an occasion on which we seek to attract visitors from all over the world. Surely, we want to present to them a country that is worth seeing, with our villages, countryside, and great cities as examples of British ingenuity, capacity and workmanship, but we are not likely to be able to do so unless the Minister can say that the Bill will he given immediate implementation. From the examples I have quoted, I can see no indication that there is any intention by the right hon. Gentleman to put this Measure into effect within a reasonable time.
This Bill applies to Scotland, as we all know. It says so. On many occa-


sions I have had to complain in regard to Bills published in this House about their phraseology and about the redundant use of words. I have never blamed those responsible for printing or drafting a Bill, but I have blamed Members of the Government for rushing their unfortunate officials at such a pace that they cannot give effect to what possibly is in the minds of Ministers—goodness only knows, I do not know. In reading this Fill through, and knowing that I can only speak on what is in the Bill and not on what should be in the Bill, I come to the definitions in Clause 15. These are definitions as applied to Scotland. What do we get in page 10, line 15? I want to call attention very seriously to the definition of "church," as applied to England and the definition as applied to Scotland. In the English interpretation it is perfectly reasonable. It says
church' means a place of worship …
Everyone understands what that means, but the Scottish definition says:
'church' means a church …
I ask where is the intelligence in placing a definition of that kind on the Statute Book? Sometimes I give up this Government in complete despair.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Does it not say that a church means a kirk?

Sir T. Moore: The Bill might have given some better indication of what "church" meant, but it says
'church' means a church …
[HON. MEMBERS: "Read on."] I do not need to read on. I am merely stating the first line in the definition and comparing it with the definition in the English section, which says
'church' means a place of worship …
That is intelligible and everyone understands it.
I do not intend to detain the House much longer, but I thought it my duty to point out these obvious defects which, apparently, have not yet come to the attention of the Minister responsible for the Bill. I should have thought he would know the Bill through and through having studied it by midnight oil for months before it came to this House. No doubt there will he other opportunities to correct this Bill in another place and

no doubt it will be dealt with there with the intelligence that we expect from another place.

3.48 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I am certain the whole House enjoyed and appreciated the very eloquent, informative and interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith). I am certain most hon. Members were grateful for the explanation he gave, out of a great knowledge acquired from a deep study, of what he himself told us was a most intricate and technical subject.
It has been observed that this Bill has really no political implications whatever and that there is no need for any heat to be generated on the subject. I rather regretted that at an earlier stage today that appeared to have been forgotten. A great deal of interest has been aroused in this Bill, which has shown itself in a fairly long Debate today. I anticipated, for instance, that we might have been able to finish with this Bill round about One o'clock, but the interest has been so great that now, within a few minutes of Four o'clock, we are still discussing the Third Reading.
Reference has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) to the fact that this Bill applies to Scotland as well as to England. I had hoped that in those circumstances we might have had with us today some representative of the Scottish Office. Had that been so, I am quite certain that some of my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies, apart from those who are present, would have put to the Scottish Minister some very interesting points for elucidation. But as the Scottish Office has not been represented we have been unable to have those points put before a Scottish Minister.
There is one matter on which I should like some further information. We have been told during the debates on the Bill, and it is perfectly obvious, that the cost of the clearing of these sites or of improving their amenities will in certain circumstances be very great. It was pointed out at an earlier stage that it was very doubtful whether in the circumstances and in view of the cost local authorities would be able to proceed under the powers which the Bill gives them. The right hon. Gentleman told us he was satisfied with the powers which


he had under the 1933 Act, and that he would be able to help the local authorities in view of those powers. I trust that that may be so, because I am almost certain that help of some kind will have to be given if the Bill is to succeed in its purpose.
There was one other matter to which the right hon. Gentleman referred a few moments ago, that is the powers of deterrent. He said during the Committee stage that he would add these powers at a later stage. I thought he would do so during the Report stage but as that stage followed at once, I would ask him whether he intends to obtain those powers while the Bill is in another place by having them inserted in this Measure there?
The Bill is for a purpose with which every Member of this House must be in agreement. We all want to see these war damaged sites cleared up, made presentable and respectable and put in order. But we should like that to be done under certain conditions and it is in respect of those conditions that there is not full agreement between us. Take, for example, Clause 1, which gives only two alternatives, and it is a pity that they are alternatives. There can either be agreement or compulsion; it is one or the other. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that that in fact will not he so; that he will see that agreement comes first. That is not provided in the Bill, however, and we are sorry about it. We would much rather have seen it provided in the Measure but the Bill as it stands leaves no option. It must be one or the other, not one first with the other to follow if it is impossible to get agreement.
Again, Clause 3 of the Bill lays down a completely new procedure which many of us think is unfortunate. It means that lawyers and other people will have to make an intricate study of this new procedure when there is already one in existence which could be followed, and which is well understood and well recognised. But there it is, that is what is in the Bill and we cannot at this stage do anything about the matter.
The other point I would criticise most strongly related to Clause 4. It is a matter to which I drew attention at an earlier stage. I do not believe that the matter

of amenity is impressed strongly enough on local authorities in that Clause, and I wish that that could be altered. The Attorney-General is with us at this stage—

Sir T. Moore: He has been with us all day.

Commander Galbraith: He has been with us from time to time during the day and we are grateful and happy to see him here. I am not being funny in saying that: it is perfectly well meant. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been engaged on a great mission in the United States and we are glad to see him back again. I mean that genuinely and there is nothing funny about it. Today he was in the House when there was a discussion on the subject of the War Damage Commission, and what happened under a Clause of the War Damage Act, 1943, and a Clause of this Bill. The Minister of Health endeavoured to give a legal interpretation of the difference between the Clause in the War Damage Act and Clause 11 of this Bill which few of us could understand. Indeed my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford was in great difficulty, and heaven knows, if he is in difficulty others of us must have been floundering very badly indeed. I did wish that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been able to intervene and make this matter abundantly clear to us. But that cannot be helped now. The matter is in the Bill and there it will have to stay.
Everyone of us wishes this Bill well We doubt whether its machinery will be sufficient for the purpose. We doubt whether funds can be found to carry out what we all wish to do. But in spite of our doubts, we have hope, and our hope is that the Bill will be sufficient for the purpose for which we are passing it. Therefore, without any second thoughts we on this side of the House pass it on its way with our best wishes, and in the hope that, having been given an unopposed Third Reading, it may indeed bring those benefits to our bombed cities and war damaged sites which we all wish it to bring to them.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed

Orders of the Day — "HEREFORD TIMES" (REPORT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Bowden.]

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin: During the Debate on the Local Government Boundary Commission (Dissolution) Bill on 2nd November an allegation was made by the Minister of Health that a report in the "Hereford Times" of 5th October, giving an account of a statement made by the Mayor of Hereford to the Finance and General Purposes Committee of the City Council, was incorrect. The Minister has now had an opportunity of finding out whether in fact the report in the "Hereford Times" was accurate or not, and I hope that, having found out that the report was accurate, he is prepared to apologise to the editor and staff and withdraw his allegation.
If the Minister will do this, he will only be following the example of his colleague the Minister of Labour, who, a few days ago, having found out that an article which he described as "a malicious concoction" was not in fact a malicious concoction by the papers concerned, was generous enough to come to this House and withdraw the statement he had made. If the Minister of Health, having found out that the report was accurate, will get up at this stage and apologise to the editor for his statements, and will withdraw them, I will not take up the time of the House any longer.
Since apparently the Minister is not big enough to get up and make an apology for the irresponsible and malicious attack he made on the integrity of the editor and the staff I propose to proceed—

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): Will the hon. Member be good enough to quote in the OFFICIAL REPORT where I said that?

Mr. Baldwin: I did not catch what the Minister said.

Mr. Bevan: Where I said that the report in the "Hereford Times" was incorrect, in other words that the "Hereford Times" had itself mis-reported?

Mr. Baldwin: Well, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in reference to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for

Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) the Minister said:
I cannot follow up every lie.
Also, he said:
There is no limit to the capacity of the British newspaper to invent stories. What is the authority of the statement?"-[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 457–8.]

Mr. Bevan: In what part of the statement did I say, first, that it was the "Hereford Times" that told a lie and, second, that the "Hereford Times" had mis-reported any statement?

Mr. Baldwin: The Minister asked where the statement was taken from and then inferred that the statement was incorrect. I will leave that to the judgment of the House.

Mr. Bevan: This is a characteristic example of hon. Members getting their impressions from newspapers and not from the sources. Will the hon. Member at the very beginning quote HANSARD in which I said specifically—

It being Four o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wallace.]

Mr. Bevan: —in which I said specifically that the "Hereford Times" had mis-reported, or that the "Hereford Times" had lied?

Mr. Baldwin: I can only quote the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and the comments made by the Minister at that time.

Mr. Bing: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me?

Mr. Baldwin: I do not propose to give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I know the right hon. Gentleman's cleverness. He wants to draw out this Debate so that he will not have to face up to the charges which I am making about what he said in the course of his speech.

Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order. This is a very serious matter. I am alleged to have made a statement in the House of Commons which reflects directly upon a newspaper and the editor of that newspaper. The purpose of the Adjournment


Debate is to deal with that matter. I am, therefore, entitled to ask that there shall be read out from HANSARD the statement upon which the allegations are based.

Mr. Baldwin: The Minister in his speech at the end of the Debate said:
I at once say that I am not prepared, without further investigation, to admit that the Mayor did say this, because we all know how some of those local newspapers report local council meetings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 511.]
That was in direct reply to what had been said about the "Hereford Times" and I say that that was definite enough. The Minister has had an opportunity of finding out whether this statement was correct or not, and he is not man enough now, having found out that it was incorrect, to apologise. This allegation was brought out in the course of the Debate. It was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton who wanted to find out whether in fact the Minister wanted to do away with small local councils or not. He gave as his reason the statement which had been made in the "Hereford Times" which gave a report of a deputation which had attended a meeting of non-county boroughs and later given their impression to the "Hereford Times."
I wish to say that I do not propose to take up the question of whether the Mayor and the aldermen who went to that meeting formed a correct impression or not.

Mr. Mellish: Why not?

Mr. Baldwin: It has nothing to do with the case. I am concerned with this. They give their impression to the Finance Committee and it was reported by the "Hereford Times." That report was correct. I do not want the Minister to ride off with his usual debating skill on that line alone. We do not want any red herrings. He made allegations that this report was not correct, and he has had the chance to find out.

Mr. Austin: Why not bring in the "Sunday Express"?

Mr. Baldwin: Hon. Members want to bring in all sorts of things to give the Minister the chance to ride off on something else. I will quote one or two of the comments the Minister made. He said:

There is no limit to the capacity of the British newspaper to invent stories.
He also said:
All I can say is that that report is absolutely and utterly untrue."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 2nd November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 458.]
How did the Minister know whether the report was utterly untrue or not if he had not taken any steps to find out? He had had plenty of time to find out. Not only is this an attempt to damage the good name of the editor but it casts a grave reflection on the reporters who serve that journal. I am glad to know that the Institute of Journalists has sent the Minister a very strong letter of protest against the action he has taken. If the newspaper concerned was the obscure provincial newspaper which the Minister described, there would have been no need for me to call attention to this slander, but those of us who know this paper and who live in this obscure part of the world treat the Minister's statement with the contempt it deserves.
The "Hereford Times" has been appearing for 100 years, and "Berrow's Worcester Journal" is possibly the oldest newspaper in Great Britain. These newspapers are not obscure provincial newspapers. They are read all over the world, and it is for that reason that I have taken the opportunity of calling attention to what has been said. I should not like it to be thought by our friends all over the world that we are not prepared to defend the good name of newspapers of which we are so proud. I have had close business connections with both these newspapers for 40 years; I have known the editors and reporters in that time and I have the greatest respect for them. I am quite sure that they are not newspapers whose circulations would depend on sensational and sordid news, but which really give good news correctly reported. If any confirmation is needed whether this was correctly reported or not, we have the Mayor of Hereford, who was the Socialist candidate for Hereford city, and also a former mayor, Alderman E. W. Langford—

Mr. Bevan: These are serious matters, because this has been reported in the newspapers with an unusual amount of inaccuracy. At no time in the House of Commons in the course of that Debate did I accuse the "Hereford Times" of actually inaccurately reporting the proceedings


of the council, and the hon. Member has so far failed to quote from HANSARD that I did so. What I did do was to express a view about the accuracy of some local reporting, and that view has now been confirmed.

Mr. Baldwin: The Debate was centred on two newspapers only and not the Press of the country. They were the "Hereford Times" and "Berrow's Worcester Journal," and the Minister said that the report was absolutely and utterly untrue. If that did not refer to the editor of the "Hereford Times," I do not know what words mean.
I want to say this. Both members of the committee who were present and heard the report of the mayor to the Finance Committee of the City Council vouch that the report as contained in the "Hereford Times" was accurate. All I can say now is that the Minister should take this opportunity of apologising to the editor and his staff for the statement he has made, and that he should do the thing which is right. I only wish that he was big enough to take the line which his colleague the Minister of Labour took.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Delargy: The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) has told us quite a lot about the "Hereford Times," has given it a wonderful boost and has told us all about its long history and world-wide reputation. He has also told us about the marvellous reputation of its editors and staff. One thing which he has not quoted from the "Hereford Times," and which everyone expected him to do, is the actual story which has precipitated this controversy.
I propose to rectify that omission at once, so that hon. Members and the Press who will report this Debate will know precisely what the row is all about,—[Interruption.]—Well, I hope the Press will select this part. Here is the quotation from the "Hereford Times" of 8th October, 1949, and I want hon. Members to take very careful note of this actual report from the "Hereford Times," because I have a couple of charges of my own to make against it, and these are not "unfounded charges" but charges which I will prove. The report was as follows:
The matter arose out of the report to the Finance Committee, which referred to a meet-

ing held in London of representatives of non-county boroughs to consider the future of local government, what steps the Association of Municipal Corporations should be asked to take to protect the position of the non-county boroughs in any review by the Government of the structure and foundations of local authorities.' The meeting was attended by the Mayor"—
I emphasise that I am still quoting—
was attended by the Mayor (Alderman W. Pigott), Mr. Langford and the Town Clerk. The Mayor informed the Council that the information gained at the meeting held on Thursday of last week was, if accurate, of a startling character to those who believed in the maintenance of the democratic principle of local government. Apparently a deputation the previous day had waited on the Minister of Health…. 'It was reported,' the Mayor went on to say, that the Minister had stated that it was his intention that all the small authorities should go out of existence.'
The story, therefore, is based on a report given to the local council by the Mayor. Anyone reading that story as published in the "Hereford Times" could only assume that the Mayor himself had been present at the meeting where the Minister was supposed to have made his statement. There is no other interpretation that a normal reader could place on that story. Yet, in fact, the Mayor was not present at that meeting. The meeting which he did attend was an altogether different one.
Well now, I do not accuse the "Hereford Times" of a straight, deliberate lie; but I do accuse them, most emphatically, of obscuring the truth. I do accuse them of misleading their readers. I do accuse them of mentioning two meetings but giving the clear impression that they were talking about one and the same meeting. I do accuse them of having omitted to state that the Mayor of Hereford, on whose authority this story of theirs was published, was not present at the meeting where the Minister is supposed to have made his statement.

Mr. Baldwin: The hon. Member is riding off on exactly the line I have mentioned. What the Mayor of Hereford said was this:
The 'Hereford Times' report was exactly as it was said to have happened in the Council. It was a fair and accurate report.

Mr. Delargy: I am not talking about after-thoughts of the Mayor of Hereford. I am not speaking of the statements he made afterwards. I am speaking about the story itself which launched this controversy, and I have quoted it from the


"Hereford Times." This startling omission—or, if hon. Members like, startling confusion between two meetings—is crucial to the issue. This omission vitiates the whole story as published in the "Hereford Times," because this omission gives to their story an authority which, without it, would be entirely lacking.
Therefore, if there is to be talk of apology one would think that the apology might have been forthcoming from the "Hereford Times," not merely to the Minister of Health, but to their readers—and their readers, we understand, are to be found in all corners of the globe—an apology to their readers who have been misled by this vital omission in their story. Did the "Hereford Times" apologise? Not a bit of it. They were screaming for apologies themselves, and I regret to say that in this chorus of screams they were joined by several other newspapers. I very much regret, in particular, that they were joined by the "Manchester Guardian"

Mr. James Hudson: The temperate "Manchester Guardian."

Mr. Delargy: —a newspaper which is normally accurate and which is normally courteous—

Mr. Hudson: Oh, no.

Mr. Delargy: —but a newspaper which, on this occasion, ranted away like a bilious, cantankerous old woman. A more peevish, bad-tempered editorial I have never before seen in this usually temperate newspaper. There were no apologies forthcoming from the "Hereford Times." The "Hereford Times" was too busy asking for apologies for itself and too busy hurling abuse at the Minister—abuse of a most degrading nature. One may read in the editorial columns of the "Hereford Times" of 5th November, 1949, a particularly degrading sneer at the circumstances of the Minister's origins. It is true, of course—everybody knows it—that the Minister was born in poor and somewhat obscure circumstances, as the newspaper says. The same thing is true of many of us on this side of the House.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman quote that from the "Hereford Times"?

Mr. Delargy: By all means. The newspaper advises the Minister to remember
the humble nature of his own beginnings, from whose obscurity, for the sake of the nation's unity in war and peace, it would have been better had he never emerged.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Disgusting!

Mr. Daines: Proud of it?

Mr. Delargy: It is, as I say, true of many of us on this side of the House that we come from somewhat obscure origins. We are not ashamed of it. Neither ought we to be inordinately proud of it. It is merely an accident that some of us were born in the slums. But we have surely some cause to protest when it is thrown in our teeth by the editors of newspapers as though it were a crime. One thing, at all events, we can say about the present Government, and particularly about the present Minister of Health: he is doing his best to see that future generations will not be born in slums, since he is doing his best to see that there will be no slums for them to be born into.
I therefore say on the two charges I have made against the "Hereford Times"—after having quoted the "Hereford Times", mark you—first on the charge of inaccuracy based on a vital omission in their story, and secondly on the charge of cheap abuse which they have levelled against the Minister, that if any apologies are to be forthcoming they ought to be forthcoming from the editor of the "Hereford Times".

4.18 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I have no objection whatsoever to the fact that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) has raised this matter today. I have, however, an objection to the fact that, although he took the grave step of raising the matter on the Adjournment, he did not himself think it worth while to be more precise in what it was he was charging me with. Even now the House does not know, and I call attention to the inaccuracy of newspaper reporting here. I call attention to this as a classic instance of editors listening to the nonsense of other editors and never getting back to the source at all. It looks to me as if neither the editor of the "Hereford Times," nor the editor of the "Manchester Guardian," nor any of the


editors who have wasted so mach ink, so much space, and so much malice—

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: And so much abuse.

Mr. Bevan: —on this subject has, any one of them, taken the trouble to read HANSARD before committing themselves to paper. Not one. The hon. Member for Leominster has it in his hand, but he has not read it. If he has read it, it is obvious that he has not understood it at all. Furthermore, I also call attention to the fact that even the "News Chronicle," which gave front page space to the malicious leader of the "Manchester Guardian," has not yet found space to print the quotation from HANSARD containing the Debate of that Committee stage. They will find room for anything except the original source of the facts.
I make that the first charge against some of the newspapers of this country, that they will print tendentious headlines and articles but will not print HANSARD to enable the people themselves to make up their minds as to what are the facts. What were the facts in this case? The facts were, that at a committee of a corporation a councillor, who happened to be mayor, made a statement of what he thought he had heard someone say of what the Minister of Health had said somewhere else. This was a statement made in a committee. Afterwards, going through the minutes of the committee, the reporter of the "Hereford Times" comes across this statement. What was the statement? The statement was to the effect that at a certain deputation, at an interview not yet identified—it was not the interview I gave to the deputation of non-county boroughs, because that deputation occurred after this statement, and so no one has yet been able to identify the deputation at which I was alleged to have made this statement—

Mr. Baldwin: May I—

Mr. Bevan: No. The hon. Member has revealed so much ignorance about this subject that he is not entitled to be heard.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: The Minister is riding off the whole problem.

Mr. Bevan: I am going to deal very faithfully with the "Hereford Times"

and the other papers. There is no evidence whatsoever to show to which interview it referred. I have never said that the "Hereford Times" did not accurately report what the minutes of the finance committee showed. I defy anyone to find that I did so in HANSARD.

Mr. Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman did so by implication.

Mr. Bevan: What I said was that I was not, on the spur of the moment, because no notice had been given, going to accept any unconfirmed report from a newspaper and base a Parliamentary statement upon it. I said—and I repeat it—that we are accustomed to the misreporting of certain local newspapers, and that I am not going to accept reports raised in the House of Commons, and misreported by the hon. Member who has raised it—he did not report the "Hereford Times" correctly in his intervention. I was not going to base an authoritative Ministerial statement on an unconfirmed Press report, knowing the way in which reports are sometimes made. But what happened? They took this up, through these minutes, and what did they do with it then? I have some experience of these matters. I have been an editor of a journal myself. If this statement that I was alleged to have made had actually been made by me, it would have been a very serious statement indeed.

Mr. Baldwin: That is not the point at all.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member must listen for a moment or leave the Chamber. It would have been a very serious statement indeed, because what is it alleged I said? It was that I had made at an unidentified interview a very important statement of Government policy in relationship to local government that we were, in fact, going to abolish all small local authorities and hand over some of their functions to regional boards. That is what I was alleged to have said. What would have happened with a reputable and sensible editor of a newspaper whose reporter brought that in? He would not question the accuracy of the newspaper reporter at all, but what he would have said was that this was so serious a statement, involving a profound departure of Government policy, that they had better confirm it before running it as a story.
If the editor of the "Hereford Times" knew his job, if he were anxious to give to his readers accurate news about Government policy and not merely to perform a political stunt, he would have said: "This is serious. I doubt very much whether the Minister of Health ever made so grave a statement in this fashion. If he were going to announce an important and fundamental departure of Government policy he would have made his statement in the House of Commons and not to an unidentified deputation that was subsequently misreported." Then he would have said: "Let us find out," and he would have got into touch with the Ministry of Health. He would have asked: "Is it a fact that this is Government policy?" Oh, no, he did no such thing. He had got what he wanted. He had got a stunt. This is the stunt, and this is what he did with it. This is the heading:
New threat to local Government. City, county and district councils may disappear.
Then, of course, down below there is the usual technique:
Hereford Mayor's statement on Minister's intentions.
Having done that, all 'the others started. Here I have a whole pile of newspaper cuttings, all starting off with the "Hereford Times," which not only misled its own readers but misled all its colleagues. It is one of the characteristic examples of some of their newspapers that they do not write for their public; they write for themselves. They gossip from each other's columns.

Mr. J.P.L. Thomas: rose—

Mr. Bevan: No, no Here is another one:
Extermination threat.
Then we go on to other articles. The "Birmingham Post" writes a leader on local government. In other words—

Mr. Baldwin: The Minister is trying to ride off.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member thinks this is riding off. On top of this, after having got all these unconfirmed statements, who would have thought that what was actually in question was merely a minor point whether I was going to put

the 75,000 limit on population in place of the 100,000 that the Coalition Government had put in. In point of fact, it is the present Minister of Health that has put in a smaller figure in place of the larger figure put in by the Coalition Government. It is the opposite of what has been said.
What therefore has resulted? I have received letters from the secretary and members of the deputation I had met, denying absolutely all the allegations made by the Mayor of Hereford, and therefore denying all the great apparatus of misrepresentation based upon that by those newspapers. It is upon this incredibly narrow and fragile foundation that the "Manchester Guardian" demeaned itself by one of the most bitter personal attacks made for many years—in which the "News Chronicle" persisted by printing it on the front page. If any apology ought to be forthcoming in this matter it should be an apology to the Minister of the Crown from newspapers who have behaved frivolously and maliciously in this matter.
I know that Ministers are sometimes bullied by newspapers. I will not be bullied by newspapers. I will not be. I refuse to be. I say to these people that one of the chief pieces of evidence that they no longer print the news in this country accurately is to be found in the fact that the newspapers of Great Britain never had less influence with the British public than they have at the present time. So far from Ministers being expected to mend their ways, the time has come for the newspapers to ask themselves whether their code of professional conduct ought not to be overhauled before they fall even lower in the public esteem.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I was—

The Question having been proposed at Four o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Four o'Clock.